list_strings

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it explains the two modes, CLI subcommands, and the silent 'count: 0' response for encrypted heaps. It lacks details on performance or side effects but is adequate for a read-only analysis tool.

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 structured into clear sections (modes, CLI, args, return) and includes relevant details. It is somewhat lengthy but efficient given the tool's complexity; a slightly tighter focus on essential info could improve 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a complete return format example and covers edge cases. It lacks information on error handling or permissions but is sufficiently complete for a .NET string extraction tool within the given sibling context.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates fully: it explains each parameter's purpose, default values, and mode options. It also provides a detailed return format example, adding significant meaning 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 the tool's purpose: 'Extract user-visible strings from the .NET #US heap.' It distinguishes two modes (field-default and ldstr) with specific use cases, making it distinct from sibling tools which target different .NET analysis tasks.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode (pure-.NET vs Mono path) and mentions edge cases (encrypted heaps). However, it does not directly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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