pwndbg_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions searching all mapped memory regions and supports filtering by permissions, but does not disclose side effects, performance implications, or return format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a paragraph and an Args list, but is somewhat verbose. The source and category lines could be trimmed, and the reference link may be unnecessary in the tool description.

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 the 6 parameters and no output schema description, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details about return values or expected behavior. The reference link provides additional context but is not included inline.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It provides an Args list explaining each parameter, including valid search types and boolean flags, which adds significant value beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 searches process memory for byte sequences, strings, pointers, or integers, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on memory search, unlike other tools like pwndbg_strings or pwndbg_leakfind.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. It lacks explicit context for selection, such as when to use pwndbg_search over pwndbg_strings for string searches.

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