pwntools_constgrep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of rate limits, permission requirements, or response format), so it provides no value beyond annotations, warranting a standard 3.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler. Every word is essential, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple search tool with a thorough output schema and robust annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. However, it lacks an example or clarification of search format (e.g., hex vs. plain text). With the output schema present, the agent can infer return details, so it is mostly complete.

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 schema itself provides descriptions for all three parameters (arch, limit, search), achieving 100% intrinsic coverage. The description adds only the vague 'by name or value' phrase, which slightly reinforces the search parameter's meaning but does not offer semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search pwntools/ELF constants by name or value,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (pwntools/ELF constants), and scope (by name or value). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_search (searches bytes/instructions) and pwntools_elf_strings (searches strings), earning a top score.

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 such as pwntools_elf_search or pwntools_elf_symbols. It lacks explicit context for selection, resulting in a low score.

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