SearchStrings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is in scope and output behavior: only module-referenced strings are searched, filtering happens client-side, results are deterministically paged with module/RVA identity, and detail=full adds diagnostics without bypassing pagination. That last point pre-empts a common agent misconception about escaping paging, which is genuinely useful.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Purpose, mechanism, and pagination caveat are ordered by importance, and nothing restates the tool name or annotations.

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 read-only search with no output schema and no annotation gaps, the description supplies the essentials: the module-scoped search domain, deterministic paging, result identity (module/RVA), and the detail flag's limitation. It falls short only on parameter-level semantics, which the empty schema leaves entirely to the reader.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only covers 'detail' (full) and gestures at pagination and the ASCII/UTF-16 encoding choice; regex mode, case_sensitive, module selection, and limit/offset semantics are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Search ASCII/UTF-16 strings') and narrows the scope precisely ('referenced by the current debuggee module'), which is a meaningful constraint an agent can act on. None of the sibling tools (ReadMemory, GetModuleList, DisasmRange, etc.) overlap with this operation, so it is readily distinguishable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description explains the underlying mechanism (x64dbg strref view) and the post-filtering step, from which an agent can infer this is for locating strings inside a loaded module. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives for adjacent needs (e.g. raw memory scanning via ReadMemory).

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