frida_linux_got_hook

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

The description discloses the two behaviors (overwrite with replacement_addr or install logging trampoline) but does not mention reversibility, persistence, permission requirements, or side effects. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is readable but could be structured with bullets for easier scanning.

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?

Missing information on return value, error conditions, preconditions (e.g., must the process be attached?), and whether it requires an active session. Given no output schema, the description should cover these 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?

The description provides clear definitions and examples for all four parameters, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. Each parameter is explained with type hints and usage context.

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 it overwrites a GOT/PLT entry for a function in a Linux target module. It distinguishes itself from other Frida hooks by specifying the mechanism and platform.

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 function calls via GOT patching on Linux, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_hook_native_function or frida_interceptor_replace.

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