frida_memory_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the active-session prerequisite and address/pattern formats, but it does not state whether the scan is read-only, what it returns (e.g., list of matches), or potential side effects like blocking or performance impact. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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: a single purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan. There is no redundant content.

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?

All parameters are explained and prerequisites are noted, which is good for a 4-required-param tool. The presence of an output schema likely covers return-value details, so the description doesn't need to explain that. It lacks explicit behavioral context (like no-match behavior), but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 for parameters, but the description provides essential semantic details for all four: pid (must have active session), address (hex string), size (number of bytes), and pattern (Frida-style with an example and wildcard '??'). This goes well beyond the bare schema and is crucial for correct invocation.

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 states a specific action ('Scan process memory for a byte pattern') with a clear resource (process memory) and target (byte pattern). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_memory_read and frida_memory_write.

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 (use when you need to search for a pattern in memory) and notes the prerequisite that the PID must have an active session, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. There is no clear exclusion or comparison to siblings.

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