search_bytes

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pattern format but not whether the search is scoped to the current session, whether it requires an active session, pagination/limit behavior, or what happens with no match. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage and a complex 4-param schema, this is a significant 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?

Short and front-loaded, with the format hint placed second. No wasted words, though the format examples could be tightened with a note on what is accepted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage context, the description is far too thin for a 4-parameter search 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but only documents the required 'pattern' parameter's format. The optional to_addr, from_addr, and session_id parameters get no explanation; an agent cannot infer whether addresses are inclusive, absolute, or session-scoped.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Search for byte pattern'. This distinguishes it from search_string and search_rop_gadgets among siblings. Lacks sibling naming, but the resource is specific enough to differentiate.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives like search_string for ASCII patterns. The description implies context (binary search via /x) but offers no explicit selection criteria.

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