extract_strings

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: return format (dict with ascii and utf16le arrays of objects with string, offset, encoding), linear file walking, per-encoding cap default 50000, and performance characteristics. It adds context beyond schema.

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?

Concise and well-structured with an Args section and a performance note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and a dict return, the description is complete: it explains the return format, the pipeline with find_secrets, and performance caveats. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all three parameters ('path: file to scan', 'min_length: minimum string length (default 8)', 'max_strings: per-encoding cap (default 50,000)'), adding meaning and defaults. Could be slightly more detailed (e.g., path format), but compensates well.

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 'Extract printable ASCII and UTF-16LE strings from *path*', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'find_secrets' by indicating the output should be passed to that tool for leak detection.

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?

Explicitly advises against using this tool on large files (>500 MB GameAssembly.dll) and suggests an alternative (re-lief.categorize_strings). It also clarifies that this is raw extraction, not for leaks, guiding proper usage.

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