list_stringsLists strings found in a binary with pagination and optional substring filtering to help inspect embedded text during headless Ghidra analysis.
列出程序中的字符串（分页，filter 子串过滤）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| binary | Yes | ||
| filter | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 discloses that results are paginated and filterable, but says nothing about result ordering, what a 'string' means here (ASCII/Unicode, min length), or the shape/size of the response — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 compact sentence with the core verb and qualifiers front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though borderline terse for the schema it fronts.
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 four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the 'binary' identifier, ordering, and return characteristics; it covers only pagination and filtering at a high level, leaving the required-parameter semantics and result format unaddressed.
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% for all four parameters. The description only loosely glosses pagination (limit/offset) and substring filtering, and never explains the required 'binary' parameter (path? id? name?), which is the most critical input to get right.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ('list strings in the program') and adds scope details (paginated, substring filtering). It does not distinguish this from sibling tools that also surface strings or search across binaries, so an agent must infer that this operates on a single binary.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of 'filter 子串过滤' suggests using it to search strings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as find_in_all_binaries or list_functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.