search_instructions_in_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the return type ('List of matching instructions') without covering side effects (e.g., read-only nature, no file modification) or potential errors. Minimal disclosure beyond purpose.

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 in a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It includes all parameters but could be slightly more concise. Front-loaded with the core purpose sentence.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and returns but lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs siblings, error conditions, prerequisites). The output schema exists but the description explains the return value.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: defines file_path as absolute path, section_name defaults to .text, arch as auto-detected, mnemonic for partial match, and group options (call, jump, ret, interrupt). This far exceeds the schema's bare properties.

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 'Search for instructions matching a pattern in a binary file's section' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('instructions in a binary file's section'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_instructions' (likely without file context) and disassembly tools.

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 parameters and defaults (e.g., 'arch: CPU architecture. Auto-detected if omitted') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_instructions or disassemble_file_section. No direct comparison or exclusions.

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