frida_dump_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return content (methods, superclass, protocols, ivars) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or constraints like requiring an attached Frida session.

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 lead sentence, a brief parameter list, and a clear outcome. No redundancy, front-loaded with action.

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?

Covers what the tool does and returns, but lacks context about when it is appropriate (e.g., after attaching to a process) and does not mention output format or error handling. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by defining 'target' as process name or pid and 'class_name' as exact ObjC class name. It also states what is returned. However, format details or validation rules are missing.

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 verb 'Dump', the resource 'full ObjC class structure', and specifies the scope: methods, protocols, ivars. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_objc_classes (which lists classes) and frida_intercept_objc_method (hooks methods).

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 vs. alternatives such as frida_objc_inspect_object or frida_objc_call_method. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., attached session) and when-not-to-use scenarios.

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