binary.search_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation (likely, given 'search'), the return format (e.g., addresses, byte offsets, or raw data), or the scope of the search (first match vs. all matches). The lack of any behavioral details is a significant gap.

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, very short sentence. It is concise in terms of length, but this is because it omits essential information rather than being efficiently informative. It earns a 4 for brevity but not for completeness of content.

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 the high complexity of the sibling tools (many search variants with different scopes) and the lack of annotations or output schema, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what this tool returns, how it differs from 'search.next_text' or 'search.all_text', or if 'limit' caps the number of results. It fails to provide a minimally useful specification.

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%, because none of the three parameters have a description or title in the input schema. The tool description only implies that 'query' is the text/bytes to search for and 'session_id' identifies the session. The 'limit' parameter's meaning (max results? bytes?) and format are completely undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 says 'Search raw text/bytes in a session.' This clearly indicates the verb ('Search') and the resource ('raw text/bytes in a session'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from many similar sibling tools like 'search.next_text', 'search.data', or 'search.next_data'. The scope of the search (e.g., is it the first occurrence, all occurrences, within a range?) is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other search siblings (e.g., 'search.next_text', 'search.all_text', 'search.data', 'search.next_constant'). The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must a session be open?), constraints, or alternatives.

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