re_strings

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation ('Extract') and hints at an extra output (control-block signature offset), but it does not explain the output format, how 'interesting' is determined, or any side effects or prerequisites. This is minimal coverage for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose with no redundant words. It is an efficient and well-structured summary.

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?

Despite having five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only a one-line overview. It omits return behavior, parameter details, and the meaning of 'interesting' or the offset, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (path, utf16, min_len, keywords, max_hits). The vague term 'interesting' might loosely relate to keywords, but it does not convey parameter semantics or constraints.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'crypto/Kirikiri strings', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on string extraction and mentioning the unique output of 'control-block signature offset'.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as re_search or re_disasm. The mention of 'crypto/Kirikiri' implies a reverse-engineering context, but there are no named alternatives or exclusion criteria, so usage is only implied.

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