mem_strings

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

Discloses key traits: literal string search, byte offset output, no symbol table needed, OS-agnostic. With no annotations, description carries full burden and covers the main behavioral aspects, though omits details like performance or limits.

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 sentences, each adds value: action+output, use case, compatibility. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Covers main functionality and use case adequately. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but overall sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the search is literal and returns offsets, but doesn't individually describe 'image', 'pattern', or 'ignore_case'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, and context (literal string, grep-like) adds value beyond 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?

Clearly states it searches a memory image for a literal string and returns byte offsets. Differentiates from siblings by specifying 'strings + grep, no symbol table required' and 'works on any raw memory image regardless of OS profile', distinguishing it from other memory analysis tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use for cross-source IOC correlation to confirm artifacts from disk are resident in memory. Provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though the sibling list implies alternatives for structured data.

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