frida_linux_syscall_hook

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, performance impact, or whether the tool is read-only. It mentions 'smart argument extraction' without elaboration, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loading the purpose, and lists parameters in a clear, structured manner. Every sentence adds value without wasted words.

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 description lacks information on how to retrieve logged arguments, whether the tool blocks or returns immediately, and how it integrates with sibling tools for getting hook messages (e.g., frida_get_hook_messages).

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 adds meaning beyond the schema: target is process name/pid, syscall_names are function names with examples, duration_seconds has a default of 10. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool hooks libc syscall wrappers and logs arguments, specifying it's for Linux. It provides examples of syscalls (open, read, write, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting Linux syscall interception.

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 gives basic guidance on using target, syscall_names, and duration_seconds, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like frida_hook_native_function or when not to use it.

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