safe_extract_strings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Safely extracts' implying non-destructive behavior, but omits details about authentication, error handling, performance, or side effects (e.g., file permissions).

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, scope, and purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 adequately explains what the tool does and its analogue, but lacks details about return values (no output schema), error conditions, or limitations. For a simple extraction tool, this is minimally adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'print-printable ASCII strings' but does not clarify the character set or filtering specifics not already in 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 clearly states that the tool extracts print-printable ASCII strings from local binary files, mimicking the Linux 'strings' utility, and specifies the purpose (look for indicators, secrets, hardcoded URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_source_code or check_binary_protections.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_source_code). It mentions mimicking Linux 'strings' but does not clarify when extracting strings is preferred over other binary analysis tasks.

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