frida_memory_dump_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it enumerates regions matching filter_protection, reads via Memory.readByteArray(), saves to .bin files, skips regions >64MB, has a 5-minute timeout, and returns a list of dumped regions with paths. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but is fairly transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose line followed by explanatory paragraphs and parameter details. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall 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 complexity of 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential functionality, parameters, and behavioral notes (size limit, timeout, return value). It lacks discussion of errors or dependencies, but is complete for a dump 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 explain each parameter. It does: target (process name or pid), output_dir (local directory, created if needed), filter_protection (with examples like 'r--', 'rwx'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's simple type strings.

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 dumps all readable memory regions from a target process to disk, using specific filtering via filter_protection. It uses a specific verb 'dump' and resource 'memory regions', which distinguishes it from siblings that enumerate, scan, or read memory.

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 explains when to use (dump regions to disk) and provides filtering examples. It mentions limitations (64MB skip, 5-minute timeout) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like frida_enumerate_ranges or frida_memory_scan. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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