frida_list_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that it 'Requires frida-tools on PATH and a matching frida-server on the device,' which is a useful prerequisite and implies the tool may fail if these are absent. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., throws an error, returns empty list), nor does it mention that 'workspace' might be created automatically, which is a side-effect. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 a single sentence of 18 words, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key prerequisite appended. Every word is informative, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 has a simple read-only purpose with 3 optional parameters. The schema covers parameter details partially, and the description provides the necessary prerequisite. However, it lacks information on the return format (e.g., list of process names and PIDs) and does not clarify the 'deviceSerial' parameter's role. For a tool that may interact with specific devices, this is a gap, but given the simplicity, a 3 is reasonable.

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 description coverage is 67%, so two parameters ('workspace' and 'includeApps') have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates 'includeApps' as 'list installed apps' which is already in the schema. The 'deviceSerial' parameter has no description, and the tool description does not clarify it. Since the schema covers most, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not go beyond it.

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 purpose: 'List running processes (or installed apps) on a device via Frida.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_devices (which lists devices) and frida_trace (which traces functions), and from file/system tools. The mention of 'via Frida' differentiates it from generic system process-listing tools.

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 this tool: when you need to list processes or apps on a device, and it mentions the requirement of frida-tools and frida-server. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use adb_shell to run 'ps' if Frida isn't set up). The 'via Frida' qualifier hints at a dependency, but a clear exclusion or alternative is missing.

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