extract_strings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only extraction but does not state whether it modifies the file, how output is returned, whether results are deduplicated, or how encoding/ordering is handled.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but it is arguably under-specified rather than efficient. 'Simple' is a vague qualifier that consumes space without adding information.

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 tool with a sibling variant, three parameters, and no output schema, the description omits return format, filter semantics, and the simple-vs-advanced distinction. An agent cannot call it correctly relative to its alternatives from this text alone.

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 100%, so all three parameters (filter, file_path, min_length) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond this, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource: string extraction from a binary file, which is more specific than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'extract_strings_advanced', leaving the agent unsure which variant to pick.

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 word 'Simple' hints that a more capable variant exists, but no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative (extract_strings_advanced) is named. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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