frida_enumerate_pending_spawn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists pending spawned processes but does not specify whether it is a read-only operation, whether it requires spawn gating to be active, or if it modifies the pending queue. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and prerequisites.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. It does not waste words, though the 'Args' block could have been integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 basic function and parameter, but it omits important context such as the prerequisite that spawn gating must be enabled to have pending spawns. It also does not explain the output format, although an output schema exists. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with Frida conventions.

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 for device_id has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'Target device. Uses default if omitted.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and default behavior, which is sufficient given the single optional parameter. The description directly compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'pending spawned processes that are waiting to be resumed.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'frida_enumerate_pending_children' by focusing on spawned processes rather than child processes. The name and description together unambiguously convey the tool's 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that spawn gating must be enabled, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'frida_enumerate_pending_children.' The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and the description of pending processes.

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