frida_find_export_by_name

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the return value (address) but does not disclose error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., connection, session), or performance implications. Basic transparency but incomplete.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then parameter descriptions. No fluff. Front-loaded with the main 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?

With 3 required params and no output schema, description covers basic usage and return value but lacks error handling, preconditions (e.g., must be attached to a process), and context about module naming. Adequate but not thorough.

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 explain parameters. It does: target as 'process name or pid', module_name as 'module or None for all', export_name as the name. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and titles.

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 'Find a single export by name, optionally scoped to a module.' The verb 'find' and resource 'export' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_find_symbol_by_name and frida_find_functions_matching.

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 finding a single export, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_enumerate_exports or frida_find_symbol_by_name. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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