strings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail by disclosing the output row layout and that it skips bytes of code (i.e., only non-code data sections are scanned). It omits default/max result sizing, but that lives in the schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior and output shape front-loaded and the exclusion placed immediately after. Nothing is padded or restated from structured fields.

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?

For a read-only, six-parameter listing tool with a fully documented schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral pieces (row format, code-section skipping, paging). No output schema exists, but the row layout is described inline, leaving only sizing defaults to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, filter, offset, encoding, count_only, and min_length are all documented in the schema. The description reinforces paging and the ASCII/UTF-16 choice but adds no format or semantics beyond that text, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (printable ASCII and UTF-16LE strings) plus the exact output row shape `va len enc text`, and it names the sibling it is not for (find_function_by_string). An agent can distinguish it from symbols, hexdump, or search without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly carves out a negative case and routes to the correct alternative: 'Not for the code using one (use find_function_by_string).' It does not cover other plausible overlaps such as search or hexdump, so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not map.

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