frida_find_symbol_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the return value 'address and type' and lists parameters. However, it does not disclose behavior on failure (e.g., symbol not found), side effects, or performance impact. For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but not detailed.

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 extremely concise: one sentence explaining the action followed by a labeled list of parameters. No extraneous words. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects or output schema), the description covers the essential: what it does, parameters, and return type. It lacks error handling or edge-case information, but for a straightforward symbol lookup, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: target, module_name, symbol_name. These add meaning beyond the bare schema, though they are concise. The parameter list is clear and corresponds to required inputs.

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 'find', the resource 'symbol by name within a module', and specifies 'including non-exported symbols', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_find_export_by_name. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with tools like frida_enumerate_symbols or frida_find_export_by_name. This omission leaves the agent without decision support.

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