frida_hook_native_by_offset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the prerequisite (active session) and the runtime resolution behavior. It does not mention potential side effects or return values, but the core behavior is clear and consistent with the tool's purpose.

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 (few sentences) and well-structured: purpose line, prerequisite, parameter explanations, and comparison with sibling. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description covers invocation details well. It does not explain what happens after hooking (e.g., return values or effects), but for a hook tool this may be implicit. Slight omission but not critical.

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, but the description compensates fully: explains module as partial match, offset as hex, name as optional label. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 hooks a native function using module name and hex offset. It distinguishes itself from the sibling frida_hook_native_function by explicitly noting the difference in addressing (offset vs absolute). The verb 'Hook' and resource 'native function' are 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 explicitly states a prerequisite (requires active session from frida_connect) and provides a clear when-to-use vs alternative: 'Unlike frida_hook_native_function... useful when ASLR is in play.' This helps the agent choose correctly.

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