frida_profiler_start

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only lists parameters and defaults (target, addresses, sampler_type, duration_seconds) without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, safety, or required privileges. The agent gets no insight into whether profiling modifies the process or what happens after duration expires.

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 brief (4 lines) with a clear list structure. It avoids wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with labels. 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics adequately but omits return values, side effects, and prerequisites. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's meaning and defaults (e.g., target is 'process name or pid', addresses are 'hex addresses', sampler_type with options 'wall_clock' or 'cycle_count', duration_seconds default 10). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Start profiling specific addresses in the target process' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool as a profiler but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling profiler tools like frida_profiler_report.

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 vs alternatives. The description lacks context for prerequisites or scenarios where profiling is appropriate versus other instrumentation techniques.

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