frida_instruction_parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies target state, or any side effects. The return values are listed but not the behavior on error (e.g., invalid address, disconnected target).

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 (two sentences and a parameter list) with no wasted words. Parameter descriptions are inline but clear. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted list), but it's effective.

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?

The description includes return values (mnemonic, operands, size, instruction string), which is good given no output schema. However, it lacks context about when this tool is appropriate (e.g., vs. frida_trace or other disassembly tools), and does not mention error handling or prerequisites.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'target' is a process name or pid, and 'address' is a hex address. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it could further specify address format (e.g., '0x' prefix optional).

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 it disassembles a single instruction at an address, specifying the verb (disassemble), resource (instruction at address), and scope (single instruction). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other Frida operations like hooking, memory manipulation, or process control.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when multiple instructions need disassembly or when higher-level analysis is required. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., target must be connected) or exclusions.

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