list_runtime_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'does not attach to or execute' adds specificity about the boundary of the read. It says nothing about preconditions (must the target device be online, is frida-server required) or about latency/failure modes for an openWorldHint tool that reaches a live device.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the negative boundary statement placed after it. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a two-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, its scope, and its non-goal, which is nearly enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is that the shape of the result (PID list, app identifiers, empty-result behavior) is only implied by 'choose an exact PID or app' rather than described.

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 50%: analysis_project_id is documented in-schema, but device_id has no description at all. The description's 'on one explicit device' hints that device_id must be a concrete identifier rather than a wildcard, which is useful, but it does not supply format, accepted values, or where such an ID comes from.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Frida process/application targets') plus a scope qualifier ('on one explicit device'), and names the downstream purpose ('choose an exact PID or app'). The 'Frida' qualifier implicitly separates it from the ADB-flavored siblings (list_adb_processes, list_adb_devices), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'to choose an exact PID or app' gives a clear use condition (enumeration prior to targeting), and 'This does not attach to or execute a target' rules out a misreading of its role. It stops short of naming an alternative for the adjacent case, e.g. when to use ADB-based process listing instead.

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