scan_pattern

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds that the default scope is the current IL2CPP module and that this is the discouraged path — implying it is more costly than symbol lookup. It does not explicitly state the cost or that scanning a large module can be slow, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the fallback warning, then a clean Args block. The warning is, however, stated twice almost verbatim (bold line plus the ⚠️ paragraph), which is redundant text that could be trimmed.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition never says what a hit looks like — module + RVA, absolute address, or count — nor whether offsets are relative to the module base, which matters since the whole point is to feed a hook target. Adequate but leaves the return shape to guesswork.

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%, so the description must carry the load and it does: it gives the pattern syntax (hex with "??" wildcards) plus a concrete example "48 8B ?? ?? E8", states module defaults to the current IL2CPP module, and explains max_results as a cap on hits returned.

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 concrete verb+resource: perform an AOB (signature) scan inside a game module. It also positions the tool against the sibling approach (metadata + RVA via find_hook_target), so an agent can tell immediately what this does and what it is not for.

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 names itself as the fallback (兜底手段) and says to prefer metadata + RVA localization first, then gives the precise conditions where scanning is warranted: symbols stripped, or target is native code. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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