search_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search operation and mentions data sources and optional stream index, but does not disclose potential side effects, limitations, or behavior on no matches. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear list for usage scenarios. Every sentence contributes value without 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 adequately covers purpose, usage context, and key parameters. However, with no output schema, it does not mention return format or behavior when no matches are found, which would be useful for a search tool.

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% and all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds some contextual meaning (e.g., linking custom regex and CTF flags to specific parameters) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 it searches for patterns including CTF flags and custom regex, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('patterns'). It also lists explicit use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools by focusing on pattern searching rather than detection or extraction.

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?

Provides three explicit 'when to use' scenarios: finding flags, searching specific patterns, and searching after following a TCP stream. This gives clear context for usage, though it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternative tools.

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