scan_pattern

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses inputs and return type but does not state whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or performance implications. The lack of explicit read-only declaration is a gap.

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 concise and well-structured: one-line purpose, pattern format example, and clear args list. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on return format specifics (e.g., address type) and error handling, making it minimally adequate.

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?

The description explains both parameters: pattern (AOB format with wildcards) and module (default GTA5.exe). Since the input schema has no descriptions, this provides crucial meaning beyond the schema's type-only specification, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 for a byte pattern in game memory, with an example pattern format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_memory or write_memory by focusing on pattern scanning, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 use for pattern scanning but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_structure, read_memory). No exclusion criteria or context for selection.

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