file_strings

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

With no annotations, the description effectively explains the scanning for runs of printable characters, configurable minimum length, and reporting with file offsets. However, it does not mention performance considerations, file size limits, or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the tool's primary action and relevant comparison, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers key aspects: file path, encoding options, minimum length, and output format (offsets). Without output schema, it could specify the exact output structure, but it's sufficient for a straightforward extraction 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?

The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the overall scanning behavior and offset reporting. Schema coverage is complete, but the description enriches understanding by linking parameters to the extraction process.

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 extracts printable and Unicode strings from binary files, analogous to Unix 'strings', with specific supported encodings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target audio, images, crypto, or documents.

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 usage via the Unix 'strings' analogy but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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