frida_android_content_provider_hook

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

Describes that it hooks specific operations and logs URI, result counts, and affected rows. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., performance impact, whether modifications are possible), and no annotations are provided to fill gaps.

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 reasonably concise with 5 sentences, front-loaded with '[Android]' and a clear purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter (e.g., combining the first two sentences).

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 mentions logging behavior but does not specify the return value or output format. Since no output schema exists, this is a gap. Also, it lacks information on how to stop the hook or handle errors. For a tool with moderate complexity and no annotations, more context would be helpful.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It defines 'target' as process name or pid, 'authority' as content provider authority, and 'duration_seconds' with a default value. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though format details for 'target' could be clearer.

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?

Clearly states it hooks ContentResolver operations (query, insert, update, delete) for a specific authority, which distinguishes it from other Frida hook tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like frida_java_hook_method or frida_hook_native_by_offset.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It describes what the tool does but does not specify contexts where it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats.

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