frida_find_functions_matching

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether a running process is required, how the tool interacts with Frida scripting, performance implications, or error handling (e.g., no matches). Returns are only vaguely described as 'matching addresses with symbolicated names.'

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 (three sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter explanations, then return value. Every 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?

Given the complexity of symbol resolution and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks detail on the format of returned data (e.g., array of objects?), prerequisites like being attached to a process, and what happens if no symbols match. The return description is too vague.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful detail to both parameters: for 'target' it clarifies it can be process name or pid, and for 'glob' it provides examples. This largely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: finding functions matching a glob pattern via DebugSymbol.findFunctionsMatching. It specifies the verb (find), resource (functions), and mechanism (glob pattern). Examples are given, and it distinguishes from siblings like frida_find_functions_named which likely uses exact names.

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?

Usage is implied through examples of glob patterns, but no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as frida_find_functions_named 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.