scan_aob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool performs a scan and returns addresses, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it modifies memory, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with process memory.

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 very concise—two sentences that front-load the core functionality and a usage hint. However, it sacrifices parameter explanations for brevity, which reduces its overall utility.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations for start/stop/protection, return value details (e.g., address format), and any behavioral traits. Given the complexity of memory scanning, more context is needed.

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%. The description only explains the 'pattern' parameter format with an example. It provides no information about 'start', 'stop', or 'protection' parameters, leaving the agent to guess their semantics and defaults. This is a critical failure.

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 performs an array-of-bytes pattern scan, provides an example pattern format with wildcards, and specifies it returns matching addresses. It also gives a concrete use case: 'Great for finding code to hook.' This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like scan_first or find_what_writes.

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 implies usage for byte pattern scanning and hooking code, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like find_what_accesses or memory_read. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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