frida_dump_module

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the tool reads the full module and writes to disk, and notes the potential difference from on-disk binary. However, it omits details about error handling, permission requirements, or whether the tool suspends the process.

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?

Three short sentences, no extraneous information. The main action is front-loaded, and supporting details are efficiently placed.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavioral nuance (potential difference from on-disk), and parameter semantics. Missing error scenarios or edge cases, but adequate for typical usage.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters: 'target' as process name or PID, 'module_name' as exact or partial name, and 'output_path' as local file path. This goes beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Dump' and resources 'live in-memory module image', clearly states action (reads from memory and writes to disk), and distinguishes from enumeration/read tools by noting the dumped image may differ from on-disk binary.

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?

Includes hint 'Critical for unpacking' but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like frida_enumerate_modules or frida_read_memory. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions provided.

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