Search Functions By Name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that matching is a case-insensitive substring search, which is useful, but says nothing about the binary scope, result limits, return behavior, or safety profile.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words and the core matching rule is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise for a three-parameter search tool.

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 three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the query matching rule but omits the role of the binary scope and the result limit.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies the query semantics as a case-insensitive substring, but does not explain the required 'binary' parameter or the 'limit' parameter.

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 operation: search functions by name substring, case-insensitively. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic listing, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_functions or find_in_all_binaries.

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 only implies that this tool is used when searching by name substring. It gives no guidance on when to use it instead of list_functions or find_in_all_binaries, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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