frida_api_resolver

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes parameters and gives query examples, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns a list of symbols, the format of results, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: one line summary followed by parameter descriptions in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence is informative with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded.

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?

While parameters are well-documented, the description lacks information about return values or output format. There is no output schema, so the agent is left guessing what happens after resolution. Also missing usage guidance. Adequate for the basics but incomplete for a 3-parameter 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%, so the description effectively adds meaning. It explains target as process name/pid, query with pattern examples, and type as 'objc' or 'module'. It adds value beyond the schema by providing usage patterns, though it does not explicitly state the default for type (schema says 'objc'). Still, good compensation.

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 'Resolve API symbols using Frida's ApiResolver', a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings such as frida_find_export_by_name by using a generic resolver pattern, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar lookup 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_find_export_by_name or frida_find_functions_matching. The description lacks context about scenarios or exclusions.

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