frida_hexdump

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

The description discloses that it dumps memory as a formatted hex display and notes parameter constraints (length default/max). However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid address), or output behavior beyond 'formatted hex dump'. With no annotations, this is moderate.

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 (two sentences plus parameter list) with no extraneous text. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, then details parameters with type/format hints.

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?

While parameters are covered, the description lacks specifics about the output format (e.g., per-line structure, ASCII representation) and error behavior. For a simple hex dump tool, this is acceptable but not thorough. No output schema exists to compensate.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: target (process name/pid), address (hex string), and length (default/max). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare 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 the tool performs a 'formatted hex dump of memory at an address', specifying the action, resource, and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_read_memory (raw bytes) and frida_memory_scan (search).

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 versus alternatives (e.g., frida_read_memory, frida_memory_scan). The description only explains what it does, not why an agent would choose it over other memory-handling tools.

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