frida_callstack_tracer

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

The description explains internal mechanisms (Interceptor, Thread.backtrace, symbolication) and return limits. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., hooking may affect performance, no mention of cleanup) nor that the tool requires an active Frida session. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden but falls short of full 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 well-structured: one-line summary, technical detail paragraph, bullet-like parameter descriptions, and output note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 the output format and limits, but lacks error conditions, dependency on a connected device/process, and whether the tool reverts hooks automatically. Given no output schema, the return info is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: specifies target is process name/pid, explains function_name_or_addr formats (hex or symbol name) with examples, and notes default duration. This compensates well for the bare schema.

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 it traces call stacks for a specific function, using verb 'Trace' and resource 'call stacks for a specific function'. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_hook_native_function (which hooks without backtrace) and frida_trace (which is more general).

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 parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like frida_stalker or frida_hook_native_function. It assumes the agent knows the task context, lacking when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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