frida_enumerate_modules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the injection of a helper script and the requirement of an active session, which hints at the underlying mechanism. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (beyond the name), potential error conditions, or any side effects from injection. This leaves gaps in predictability.

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 compact, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 description covers the essential workflow: injecting a helper script, requiring an active session, and optionally filtering by name. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not necessary. It could mention failure modes or platform constraints, but for a tool of this simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It notes that pid requires an active session and that name_filter is a case-insensitive substring filter with practical advice to avoid huge result sets. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Enumerate loaded modules in a process.' This directly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_exports (exports) or frida_ps (processes). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 description clearly states the prerequisite of an active session for the PID and recommends using name_filter to avoid large result sets. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, the context is sufficient for an agent to determine when to invoke this tool versus similar enumeration tools.

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