search_hex_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses partial matching behavior with examples and notes that results are 'Document chunks containing the hex pattern with file and project info.' However, it does not mention any potential limitations or required index state, making it a moderate disclosure.

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 well-structured with a clear opener, a usage sentence, an Args list, and a Returns line. No redundant content; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, parameters, and return type. It does not discuss limitations like index freshness or case sensitivity, but is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args section that explains each parameter, provides examples for pattern, clarifies project filtering, and gives top_k default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search for hex error codes or patterns in indexed documents using text matching.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_docs or search_code by focusing on hex patterns and partial matches.

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?

It explicitly gives usage context: 'Use this for device error codes, packet IDs, or any hex value lookup.' It does not name alternative tools for other search types, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance, but the use case is clearly defined.

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