extract-strings

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it reports 'bounded real string output' and includes a caveat that 'Indicators are not proof of malware.' However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or limitations like large files.

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?

Two concise sentences cover the command, output types, and a caveat. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, the nature of output (bounded strings plus indicators), and a necessary caution. It is moderately complete, though it omits usage guidance vs siblings.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter is filePath. The description adds minimal semantic context by referring to it as an 'evidence file,' but it does not clarify path requirements, file formats, or error behavior.

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 clearly states the action 'Run GNU strings -n 6 against an evidence file' with a specific command and target. It also mentions the output indicators, making it distinct from siblings like extract-metadata and analyze-memory-dump.

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 description implies usage on evidence files but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool. It lacks a clear 'when to use this vs extract-metadata or analyze-memory-dump' statement.

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