search_bytes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions wildcard support and return format, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only/destructive, permission requirements, performance/rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior for large results. The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive context.

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 with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and key feature (wildcards), second describes return format. Well-structured and front-loaded with essential 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?

Given 3 parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidance, which are important for a search tool in a binary analysis environment with many sibling tools.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions wildcard support (implied in schema's example) and context bytes (output-related). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for a byte pattern in the binary'), the resource ('the binary'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns addresses with context bytes. This is more specific than generic search tools like search_structures.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like data_read_byte or read_memory_bytes. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., binary must be loaded) or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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