frida_kernel_write

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. For a high-risk kernel write operation, it fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., system crash, write permissions, error handling). The warnings are minimal.

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 very short (two sentences plus parameter lines) with no wasted words. However, parameter information could be structured (e.g., bullet points) for better readability.

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 complexity and danger of kernel writes, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or safety warnings, leaving an agent underinformed for such a sensitive operation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description provides meaningful examples and formats for both parameters ('address' as hex, 'hex_bytes' as hex-encoded), adding value beyond the schema's simple type definitions.

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 action ('Write raw bytes') and the target ('kernel memory'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling kernel tools like frida_kernel_read (read) and frida_kernel_alloc (allocate).

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 'Requires kernel access', which implies a prerequisite but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like frida_write_memory (userspace). No when-not-to-use or alternative names are given.

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