jar_search_bytecode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and it says nothing behavioral. It does not state whether the match is exact, regex, or case-sensitive, whether an open session is required, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. Its brevity is appropriate to the operation, though there is little structure to evaluate beyond that one line.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description should explain the session dependency, what a result looks like, and how matching works. It delivers none of these, leaving the agent under-informed for a search tool with a required session_id.

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 session_id, file_filter, and search_value are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the hint that search_value may hold numeric values, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 (search) plus a concrete target (numeric values or strings in bytecode), which is clearer than a bare 'search'. However it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like jar_search, jar_search_opcodes, or search_binary_pattern, so an agent must guess which search surface applies to bytecode values.

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, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite four or more sibling search tools. The agent is left to infer that this is the bytecode-wide value search rather than the opcode or binary-pattern searches.

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