find_bytes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It notes wildcard support and pagination, but both are already documented in the schema; it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any instance-routing requirements.

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 single sentence is tightly structured and front-loads the core action. It wastes no words, though its brevity leans toward under-specification rather than earned 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return format or result shape, nor does it mention the required instance_id routing requirement highlighted in the schema. For a search tool with several sibling alternatives, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the input schema. The description only alludes to offset/limit pagination, which the schema already explains, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the structured field documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('byte patterns'), and adds that wildcard '??' is supported. This distinguishes it from textual search siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related byte-reader tools like get_bytes or pattern-search alternatives like find_regex.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as find_regex, find, search_text, or get_bytes. The description only implies usage from the verb, with no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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