jar_search_opcodes

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, yet it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether the search is scoped to the given session's loaded jars, how matching is performed, or whether results are capped. Only the surface intent is conveyed.

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 padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with several ambiguous siblings.

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 three-parameter search tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the dense cluster of near-identical search siblings, the absence of any disambiguation or result-shape hint leaves a meaningful gap.

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 pattern, session_id, and file_filter are already documented in the schema; the description adds no extra meaning such as pattern syntax, whether file_filter supports globs/regex, or how patterns are matched against opcodes. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource: searching bytecode opcode patterns within .class files. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling jar_search_bytecode (or jar_search), leaving the agent to guess which search variant applies.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping search siblings (jar_search, jar_search_bytecode, pattern_scan, search_code). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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