search_string

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether the search is read-only, which address space it covers, whether it requires an active session, or how many results are returned. The parameters hint at an address-range search, but the description never confirms it.

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?

Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, and the opaque '(/ )' fragment consumes space without conveying meaning. There is nothing front-loaded beyond a bare tool name restatement.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema, this definition is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to call it correctly or choose it over search_bytes.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the description must supply the missing meaning for text, to_addr, from_addr, session_id, and case_sensitive. It explains none of them — not even the required 'text' or the fact that case_sensitive defaults to true.

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 phrase 'Search for string' names a recognizable verb+resource, so the basic intent is legible. However, the trailing '(/)' is cryptic and unexplained, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like search_bytes or get_strings. No scope (memory vs. loaded binary vs. current session) is stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no mention of search_bytes or get_strings as alternatives, no preconditions, no indication of what gets searched. An agent must guess from the name alone.

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