frida_memory_query_protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Query' which implies a non-modifying operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or side-effect-free. It also does not mention what happens on invalid addresses or permissions needed. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It opens with the core purpose, then explains parameters in a clear list, and closes with the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic what, how, and return. However, it lacks error handling or prerequisites (e.g., must have a session attached). For a tool in a large toolbox, this is marginal completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines 'target' as 'process name or pid (string)' and 'address' as 'hex address to query', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only fields. However, it could clarify the exact format for addresses (e.g., '0x' prefix).

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 states 'Query memory protection at a specific address,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. Among siblings like frida_memory_protect (modifies) and frida_memory_scan (scans memory), this tool's purpose is clearly distinguished as a read-only query.

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 versus alternatives or any context or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation or that it should be used after enumerating ranges. This is a gap given the many memory-related sibling tools.

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