edb_search_instructions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that the search is case-insensitive and accepts hex byte patterns. However, it does not disclose behaviors like whether the search is limited to mapped memory, what happens if no range is given, or the format of the returned addresses. The additional info is useful but not comprehensive.

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 moderately concise but contains redundancy: the first sentence and the second paragraph essentially repeat the same information. The 'Args' section duplicates schema content. It could be streamlined into a single paragraph without losing clarity. It is not overly long, but each sentence should be justified.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details about optional range behavior (if unspecified, does it search all memory?), error conditions (e.g., pattern not found), and the exact format of the returned addresses. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (which may cover return format), the description is adequate but has gaps.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all nested parameters (pattern, range_start, range_end), including an example for pattern. The description repeats these in an 'Args' section with the same example, adding no new meaning. The description does clarify that pattern is hex and case-insensitive, but this is already implied by the schema example. With schema coverage effectively high for nested parameters, the description adds marginal value.

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 action: 'Search memory for byte patterns' and specifies it is case-insensitive and for hex byte patterns. It also provides a use case: 'finding instruction opcode patterns in code sections.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'edb_search_memory', which likely performs a similar function but without the instruction-specific focus. The verb 'search' and resource 'memory' are clear.

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 for finding instruction opcode patterns but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edb_search_memory' or other search tools. It lacks exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring a running process or open memory range). The guidance is minimal, relying on the tool name and the use case hint.

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