frida_kernel_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read (non-destructive) and returns hex-encoded bytes, but fails to disclose potential risks like system instability if an invalid address is provided, or permission requirements beyond 'kernel access'. Minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus two parameter hints. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides critical information without redundancy.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, required parameters, and return format. It does not address error scenarios or safety precautions, but for a simple read operation with two params, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage of parameters. The description adds essential semantics: address format ('hex address, e.g., 0x...') and length unit ('bytes to read'). This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though valid ranges or constraints could improve.

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 'Read kernel memory at an address' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_kernel_write. It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires kernel access'), enhancing clarity.

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 via the prerequisite ('Requires kernel access') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_read_memory for user-space or other kernel tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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