frida_ps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (PID and name), the full scope adds path/user/ppid/started, and device_id defaults when omitted. This is adequate for a read-only tool, though it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or device 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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a return-value sentence, and a clear parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 return format, parameter semantics, and scope options. It could be more explicit about what 'minimal' and 'metadata' scopes return beyond full, but the output schema likely fills in the remaining details for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: device_id uses default, scope has enumeration values with full behavior described, and pids is an optional filter. This adds deep semantic value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool lists running processes on a device, using a specific verb and resource. The 'frida-ps equivalent' reference and distinction from sibling tools like frida_ls_apps or frida_get_frontmost_application make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to enumerate processes) and provides usage context via scope and pids parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or reference sibling tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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