frida_java_list_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly describes the tool as read-only (listing classes) and explains parameters like filter (case-insensitive) and limit (default 500). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or mention any side effects, timeouts, or error conditions. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 (5 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It lists parameters in a clear, bullet-like format without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. This is an ideal structure for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain return values. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of class names as strings). Additionally, the device_id parameter is omitted. For a simple enumeration tool, these gaps are noticeable but not critical. The description covers the core functionality adequately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains target as 'process name or pid,' filter as an optional case-insensitive substring with examples, and limit with its default. However, the device_id parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. Overall, it adds meaning for 3 of 4 parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Enumerate loaded Java/ART classes in a target process,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like frida_java_list_methods (which lists methods) and frida_java_choose (which searches for instances), so an agent can easily understand what this tool does.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires Java/ART runtime in the target (Android app or JVM process),' which gives context on when it's applicable. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives (e.g., frida_java_choose or frida_dump_class), nor does it specify when not to use it. Usage is implied but not fully detailed.

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