frida_list_exports

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List RPC exports' and provides the arg origin. No mention of potential side effects, permissions, error handling, or response format (though output schema exists). It does hint that the script must be injected, but this is minimal.

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 very concise, using two short sentences. The Args section is structured and the content is directly relevant, with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple (one param) and there is an output schema to cover return values. The description covers the basic operation and parameter origin. However, it lacks guidance on usage context (e.g., when to use frida_rpc_call to invoke exports) and error scenarios, making it adequate but not 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?

The schema provides only a type and required status, with no description. The description adds that script_id is the ID returned by frida_inject, which tells the user where to obtain it. However, other aspects like format or constraints are not covered.

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 tool lists RPC exports from an injected script, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_rpc_call and frida_inject by implying the read-only listing role, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

It implies the tool is used after frida_inject, as the script_id is described as returned by that call. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusion scenarios.

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