frida_list_processes

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the filter behavior (case-insensitive substring) but does not describe the return format (e.g., list of PIDs, names). The baseline behavior of enumeration is clear, but details on output structure are absent.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds equivalent and filter detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks explicit return value description, relying on the frida-ps equivalence. Slightly incomplete but adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning: 'optional case-insensitive name substring filter' explains the parameter's purpose and behavior beyond the schema's raw type definition.

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 enumerates running processes via Frida's local device, with a verb and resource. It also mentions being equivalent to frida-ps, which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like frida_list_apps or frida_list_devices.

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 the tool's purpose and an optional filter, and the name implies it's for processes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like other listing tools. The context of sibling tools helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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