frida_java_hook_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that it hooks every overload and collects invocations with a timestamp, but does not mention side effects, permissions, prerequisites like an active Frida session, or error handling. The duration parameter is noted but not its behavior beyond default.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear bullet-like format for parameters and output example. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description covers basic usage but lacks completeness. It does not address error scenarios, performance impact, or integration with other tools. The missing device_id parameter and lack of prerequisites leave gaps.

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 must clarify parameters. It explains target, class_name, method_name, and duration_seconds, but omits device_id. The output format is described. While it adds value for most parameters, the missing parameter and lack of detail on format reduce its effectiveness.

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 all overloads of a Java method and collects invocations. It uses a specific verb (hook) and resource (Java method) and distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_java_call or frida_java_list_methods by specifying the action of hooking and collecting.

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 the tool is used for collecting method invocations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other Java hooking tools.

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