frida_crypto_hook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool captures operations with details (API name, operation type, algorithm, key bytes, I/O sizes) and explains parameters. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or non-modifying nature beyond 'capture'.

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: a clear header, platform-specific bullet points, captured data details, and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and each 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 how results are returned (e.g., streamed, logged, or stored). Given no output schema, it could be more complete by mentioning output format or retrieval method. Otherwise, it covers purpose, parameters, and platforms adequately.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'target' as process name or pid and 'duration_seconds' with default 10 and purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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's purpose: 'Hook crypto APIs to capture encryption/decryption operations live.' It specifies platforms and APIs (e.g., CCCrypt, javax.crypto.Cipher.doFinal), distinguishing it from generic hook tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 implies usage for capturing crypto operations on specific platforms but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like frida_hook_native_function or frida_win_crypto_hook. It provides clear context but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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