frida_child_process_trap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions hooking APIs and capturing data, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the target process is modified), permissions required, or what happens if the target is not found. This lack of detail for a potentially invasive tool is a significant gap.

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 structured in three short paragraphs: purpose, hooks/captured data, and parameters/use cases. It is front-loaded with the main goal and each sentence adds useful information. It is not overly verbose and is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers key aspects but misses important details: it does not describe the return format of captured data, what happens if no child processes are created, or how to handle errors. It could be more complete by specifying the output structure or referencing sibling tools for comparison.

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 adds value by explaining target as 'process name or pid' and duration_seconds as monitoring time with a default of 10. This provides meaning beyond the schema types. However, it could be more precise about target format (e.g., full path or wildcard) but is sufficient for basic use.

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 monitors child process creation by hooking specific APIs. It lists the hooked APIs and captured data, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_spawn_gating or frida_trace, which could be used for similar purposes.

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 explicit use cases (tracing process trees, catching invocations, monitoring sandbox escapes, detecting anti-analysis forks), which helps the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the best tool from context.

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