frida_process_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. It does not mention whether the target must be attached or spawned, or what happens if the process does not exist. The description lists output fields but lacks behavioral context.

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: first sentence lists all returned metadata, second sentence explains the only parameter. No filler, easily scannable. Appropriate length for a simple info tool.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter adequately. However, it does not describe return format, error conditions, or usage context (e.g., requires an active session). Missing some completeness for a new user.

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 'process name or pid (string)' to the parameter, which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). This provides useful meaning beyond the raw schema definition. However, it lacks examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, platform-specific naming). Score 3 for partially compensating for low schema coverage.

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 ('Get detailed Process metadata') and lists specific fields (pid, arch, platform, etc.). It is specific about the resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_device_get_process or frida_enumerate_modules, which also involve process data. Score 4 for clear purpose but no sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_device_get_process for getting a process handle, frida_enumerate_threads for threads, frida_get_device_info for device-level info). It only mentions the parameter format but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., target must be a running process) 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.