frida_linux_seccomp_detect

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

The description discloses the underlying mechanism (reads /proc/self/status, calls prctl(PR_GET_SECCOMP)) and the output (seccomp mode, filter count, NoNewPrivs flag). With no annotations, this adds valuable behavioral context, though permissions or side effects are not addressed.

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 concise, with the purpose front-loaded in the first line. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It efficiently covers what, how, and output.

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?

For a simple detection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, mechanism, and return values. No additional context is necessary for correct usage.

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 single parameter 'target' is described as 'process name or pid (string)', which clarifies the schema's minimal 'string' type. This is sufficient for the agent to properly invoke the tool.

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 verb 'Detect' and the specific resource 'seccomp sandbox status in a target process'. It is platform-specific with '[Linux]' prefix, differentiating it from other detection tools among siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no usage context, and no exclusions. It does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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