frida_android_webview_hook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the methods hooked and the type of data captured, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or whether the hooking is destructive or reversible. It adds some context but lacks depth.

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 brief and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a list of hooked methods and captures, and clear parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 explains what is captured but does not specify the output format or structure, and there is no output schema. Given no annotations, more detail on what the agent receives (e.g., report type, event stream) would improve completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining 'target' as process name or pid, and 'duration_seconds' as capture duration with a default. This adds meaning beyond the schema types and default values. Could be improved with examples or valid ranges.

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 hooks specific WebView methods (addJavascriptInterface, evaluateJavascript, loadUrl) to capture JS bridge interactions, with explicit details on what is captured. It is distinct from sibling tools like frida_android_jni_hook by focusing on WebView, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the numerous sibling tools. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection, leaving the agent without criteria to differentiate.

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