frida_objc_inspect_object

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the action (wrapping pointer, extracting data) but does not disclose side effects, safety, permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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: three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second expands on the action, and the third explains parameters. All necessary information is front-loaded.

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 has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable level of context. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, or any side effects, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 to both parameters: 'target' is clarified as process name or pid, and 'address' as hex address. The input schema only provides type 'string', so this context is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 inspects an ObjC object at a given address, with detailed extraction of class name, methods, ivars, and description. It is specific and distinguishes from many sibling tools that target different Frida operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar ObjC inspection tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_objc_choose, frida_dump_class). There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, 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.