grep_unallocated

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the async nature and that hits carry file-system block numbers (or blkls offsets under sleuthkit), which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about safety, permissions, resource limits, or the effect of max_mb/max_hits.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the key fact ('Background job') and stays tight. The semicolon-heavy packing is slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter async job with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the async model and result format but omits parameter semantics, safety profile, and any notion of limits or failure modes. Substantial gaps remain.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description should compensate but does not. Only 'terms' is implicitly covered; part, regex, max_mb, context, max_hits, encodings, ignore_case, and image are undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent guessing at their meaning and defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'scan unallocated space for terms'. This is meaningfully different from the grep_files/grep_file siblings, which operate on files, but the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'Background job' plus 'Poll job_result' tells the agent this is asynchronous and how to retrieve results, which is useful workflow guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over grep_files/grep_file or strings, leaving the selection to inference.

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