search.all_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the search is read-only, whether it requires special permissions (e.g., a valid session), how 'range' is defined (start/end parameters are polymorphic), or what happens with large matches (e.g., limit behavior). The description is insufficient for a mutation-unaware agent.

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 short sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly longer to add necessary context without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, no annotations, and complex sibling relationships, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on parameter semantics, behavior, and return format, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the roles of session_id, start, end, data_hex, or limit. For instance, it does not clarify that data_hex is a hex-encoded pattern, or that start/end accept both integers and strings. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Find all data/byte-pattern matches in range' communicates a general search purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'all data/byte-pattern matches' means (e.g., is it searching the entire binary or only specific regions?) and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'binary.search_text' or 'search.data'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search.all_text, search.data, or search.next_data. With many sibling search tools, an explicit statement about scope (e.g., all bytes vs. specific patterns vs. text) or ordering (e.g., use for broad analysis vs. targeted search) is missing.

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