frida_enumerate_exports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the need for an active session but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or how errors are handled. No supplementary annotation context exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the argument list is concise. There is no wasted text.

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 explained. However, the description does not differentiate from the sibling frida_list_exports and does not clarify how an 'active session' is established. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is adequate but leaves ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for both parameters ('Target process PID (must have active session)' and 'Name of the module to inspect'), adding some context beyond raw names. However, the definitions are terse and nearly restate the parameter names, lacking details on formats or preconditions.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Enumerate exports of a specific module') and identifies the target module and PID. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool frida_list_exports, which likely has a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_list_exports or frida_enumerate_modules. The only prerequisite mentioned is 'must have active session', but no context is provided for choosing this tool over others.

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