frida_hook_native_function

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the use of Interceptor.attach, default JS behavior, and duration, but does not cover side effects, cleanup, error handling, or what happens when the hook fires.

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 well-structured with bullet-like parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose, it earns its length by covering all parameters comprehensively.

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 lacks information about return values (e.g., hook ID or messages). It also does not mention prerequisites like an active Frida session or device connection, which are important for usage.

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 by explaining all five parameters: target, address, on_enter_js, on_leave_js, and duration_seconds. It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying types, defaults, and the scope of JS bodies.

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 'Hook a native function by address using Interceptor.attach.' It specifies the verb (hook), resource (native function by address), and mechanism. This distinguishes it from similar tools like frida_hook_native_by_offset.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it mentions hooking by address, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, scenarios, or trade-offs with other hooking tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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