frida_objc_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the pattern matching (glob-ish with regex conversion) which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose output format, potential errors (e.g., if target is invalid), or side effects. The mutation is implied (enumeration is read-only), but lacks explicit safety cues.

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 a single, efficient sentence of 20 words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and adds the pattern-matching detail without redundant phrases.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and one parameter's semantics. Missing: expected return type (list of strings?), error states, and precise target specification. Adequate for a straightforward enumeration tool but not fully self-contained.

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 for name_pattern (glob-ish regex conversion) beyond the schema's plain 'string' type. But target is only vaguely implied to be a process identifier; no details on accepted formats (name/PID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 action ('Enumerate'), the resource ('ObjC class names'), the scope ('in a target process'), and the filtering mechanism ('matching name_pattern'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_objc_choose (which selects instances) or frida_objc_list_protocols.

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 (e.g., frida_java_list_classes for Java classes, or frida_objc_choose for working with class instances). It does not specify prerequisites like attaching to a process or having a session, nor does it indicate what to do after enumerating class names.

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