strings_scan

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. It implies a read-only extraction and notes that offsets are included, but says nothing about the limit cap (2000 default) truncating results, regex filtering behavior, min_len filtering, or whether scanning large binaries is expensive. Significant gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and offsets, with the encoding enumeration compactly appended. No filler, though the terseness contributes to the missing parameter detail rather than offsetting it.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is not sufficient to call the tool confidently. It never explains what limit or regex do, so an agent must guess at result truncation and filtering semantics.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It documents only three valid encoding values (ascii, utf16, both) while limit, regex, and min_len are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract printable strings with file offsets.' That is concrete and distinct from sibling names like bin_info or entropy_map. It stops short of differentiating itself explicitly from the nearest alternative, find_blobs, so it is clear but not maximally discriminating.

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 alternatives such as find_blobs or yara_scan, and no prerequisites (e.g. file must exist on disk). Only the encoding values are given, which is configuration, not usage guidance.

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