frida_inject_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the injection process (loads library, calls entrypoint with data) but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether a session is required. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 with three sentences and a clear bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words.

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 and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the action, parameters, and underlying function. It could mention return values or behavior on failure, but overall it provides sufficient context for an injection tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: 'target' as process name/pid, 'library_path' as path, 'entrypoint' as optional symbol, and 'data' as optional string argument. This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 injects a shared library into a target process, specifying the file types (.dylib/.so) and the underlying Frida function. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'frida_inject_library_blob' which injects a blob instead of a file.

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 implies usage for injecting shared libraries but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative hooks or injection methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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