extract-strings

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: specifies the exact command (GNU strings -n 6), describes pattern scanning, cautions that keyword hits are indicators not proof, and notes bounded results. These details help the agent understand side effects and limitations. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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?

Four focused sentences, each adding value: the action, scanning behavior, caveat about indicators, and usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's single parameter, full schema coverage, and existing annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and when to use it. No output schema is present, but the description implies the output (readable strings) and mentions bounded results.

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 already provides full coverage for the single filePath parameter (100%). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Extract readable strings from a forensic evidence file using the real GNU `strings -n 6` command.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools extract-metadata and analyze-memory-dump by focusing on string extraction and indicator scanning.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this tool to find embedded text, URLs, and potential indicators in binary files.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling names.

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