byte_pattern_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention wildcard support (??) which is useful, but it fails to describe the return format (e.g., whether offsets are decimal, 0-based), case sensitivity, or behavior when no matches are found. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information (what it does, wildcard support) with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple with two well-described parameters, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, which leaves ambiguity about what 'offsets' looks like (e.g., list of integers, array, etc.). It is adequate for the core functionality but not fully complete without output details.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, including an example pattern '4d5a??90'. The description adds explicit semantics by stating that '??' is a wildcard byte, which clarifies that the question marks are not just part of the example but a special syntax. This adds value 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Find all offsets of a byte pattern in hex data.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and a resource ('byte pattern in hex data'), and mentions wildcard support, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that are conversions and hashing operations.

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 intended use case is evident: searching for byte patterns in hex data. The context is clear given the sibling tools are all conversions/hashes or note/sandbox helpers, and this is the only pattern search tool. It lacks explicit exclusions, but none are necessary given the tool's specificity.

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