frida_linux_dbus_intercept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions hooking specific functions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies process memory, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The description is insufficient for a hooking tool.

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: one sentence for purpose, one for hooks, one for parameters. No redundant information, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., intercepted messages format). For a hooking tool with many siblings, missing output behavior and lack of behavioral disclaimers leave the agent underinformed.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds clear meaning: 'target' is a process name or pid, and 'duration_seconds' is a capture duration with default 10. This compensates for the schema's lack of text, though format details (e.g., pid vs name) are left inferred.

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 'Intercept D-Bus method calls and messages' and lists specific hooked functions. It distinguishes this tool from many siblings focused on Android, iOS, or other platforms by prefixing '[Linux]' and detailing the D-Bus interception mechanism.

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 for intercepting D-Bus communication but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings like frida_linux_syscall_hook, no differentiation is offered.

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