search_instructions

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

The description indicates it returns a list of matching instructions and lists parameters with defaults. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or performance implications.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, all important parameters with defaults, and return type. It could mention acceptable arch values or group enum options explicitly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter (e.g., hex_code as hex-encoded bytes, mnemonic for partial match). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 instructions matching a pattern in disassembled code, with filtering by mnemonic or group. This differentiates it from sibling tools like disassemble_at_address or search_instructions_in_file.

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 explains the primary use case (searching for instruction patterns in hex code) and lists filter options. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it.

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