capture_find_bytes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at output ('raw offsets'), but says nothing about permissions, whether the APMX file must be opened first, performance over large files, or what limit/start_offset actually control. That leaves most behavioral questions unanswered for a mutation-adjacent read tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; purpose, input domain, and return type are all packed in without waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and that is the description's only real strength. With four undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly or to choose it over its many search siblings.

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% for all four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies pattern_hex is hex-encoded; it gives no format example, no explanation of limit's cap semantics, and no indication of what start_offset is measured against (bytes, offsets, entries). This is a real gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 (find), resource (a hexadecimal byte pattern), scope (in an APMX file), and result (raw offsets), which is far clearer than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as capture_search_entries, capture_hex, or capture_strings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus capture_search_entries, capture_strings, or capture_hex, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the one-sentence purpose.

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