search_strings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions searching and filtering, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that the file is not modified, how results are returned, or details like case sensitivity. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 consists of two concise sentences, each adding relevant information: the core search capability and the filtering option. There is no fluff, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and filtering. It omits finer behavioral details such as output format or search scope, but the output schema likely handles return values, making the description sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema provides only a 'query' property with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that query is used for filtering, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks specifics like matching rules or the behavior of an empty query, so compensation is partial.

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 tool's function: searching for readable strings in the binary file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_functions or decompile_function, which operate on different aspects of binary analysis.

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 implies usage when one needs to find strings in a binary, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclude other tools. No context is given about when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer.

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