search_pattern

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'search', and wildcard support is disclosed. However, it does not detail search scope (e.g., all memory vs. module) or potential performance implications. The optional module parameter is only in the schema, not the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence followed by three concise examples. It front-loads the core action and every word contributes value. No filler or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficient for a simple search tool: purpose is clear, pattern syntax is exemplified, and the schema covers parameter details. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return format is presumably covered. The only minor omission is explicit guidance on when to use this tool over similar search functions, but this is not critical for a straightforward operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for both 'pattern' and 'module'. The tool description adds extra examples ('CC', '0F 31', 'E9 ?? ?? ?? ??') but these largely duplicate the schema's own examples. It does not introduce additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search memory for a byte pattern with ?? wildcards.' It includes a specific verb (search), resource (memory), and pattern detail (wildcards). Examples like 'CC' (INT3) and 'E9 ?? ?? ?? ??' (JMP rel32) further clarify the intent and distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_strings' or 'ida_search'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the examples imply usage for finding specific instruction opcodes or byte signatures. This provides some implied context, though no direct comparison or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.