find_regex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and case-insensitive matching, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it searches all binary data or only IDA-recognized strings, or any other execution constraints.

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 four short, front-loaded clauses that each add a distinct piece of information: search method, return fields, case behavior, and use case. There is no filler.

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 low-complexity read-only search tool with rich parameter descriptions but no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential result fields and matching behavior. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the search scope and read-only nature, but no critical information is missing.

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 the schema already documents pattern, instance_id, limit, and offset. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a clear verb (search), resource (binary strings), method (regex), return fields (addr, string), and case-insensitivity, so an agent can tell it apart from byte-search or general-search siblings. It does not explicitly name the closest alternative tools, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

It provides a clear intended use case: finding hardcoded strings. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as find_bytes or search_text, so no exclusions are provided.

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