windbg_search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not disclose return format, error handling, endianness, or confirm that it is a read-only operation, leaving important behavioral traits unstated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core message, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 quite minimal and does not mention what the search returns or any limitations or prerequisites. However, the schema provides strong parameter documentation and the operation is relatively simple, so it barely meets the minimum viable standard for completeness.

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?

The schema covers all parameters thoroughly, including descriptions and examples (e.g., length format, pattern syntax). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond summarizing the pattern types already captured by the 'kind' enum, so baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 action (search), the resource (memory range), and the pattern categories (byte/string/dword/qword). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_read_memory or windbg_find_symbols, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or comparisons to sibling search tools. It falls into the 'implied usage' category.

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