Search compiled bytecode for a signature (IDA byte search)

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: scan caps with truncation flagging, the required dependency tools, and what each match reports (full name, class, first-hit byte offset). Could disclose more about scan cost behavior, but it is solid.

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 the action and use case, then constraints, then return shape. However, the trailing signature block and Phase/cost/idempotency boilerplate duplicate structured data and add length without new information.

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?

With no output schema, the description competently explains the return shape (script name, class, byte offset of first hit) and the truncation behavior. Dependencies and pattern format are covered, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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 100%, so constraints and defaults are already documented. The description restates the hexPattern format and normalization, adding no meaning beyond the schema fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource (scan scripts, dump compiled bytecode, find a hex byte pattern) and even names the underlying pipeline (getscripts + getscriptbytecode). The 'runtime equivalent of an IDA binary/byte search' framing clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-script-bytecode or find-string-in-tables.

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?

Gives explicit use cases ('locate scripts carrying a known opcode signature, constant blob, or fingerprint') and states its prerequisite dependency (getscripts + getscriptbytecode). It does not name a specific alternative tool for the when-not case, which keeps it just below a 5.

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