frida_enumerate_pending_children

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose potential return values, behavior when no children are pending, or whether child gating must be enabled. The simplicity of the operation mitigates the gap.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a single parameter explanation with no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is adequate. It explains the state ('waiting to be resumed') and the only parameter. It could mention the dependency on child gating, but the sibling tool names provide sufficient context.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section explains device_id as 'Target device. Uses default if omitted.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare anyOf/string/null definition, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 the action ('List') and the specific resource ('pending child processes that are waiting to be resumed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_pending_spawn, which deals with spawn gating rather than child gating.

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 implies usage in the context of child gating ('waiting to be resumed') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus frida_enumerate_pending_spawn or mention any prerequisites. It provides context but no direct alternatives or exclusions.

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