frida_resolve_debug_symbol

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses input formats and output fields (name, moduleName, fileName, lineNumber), indicating a read operation. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid address), dependencies (e.g., target process must be attached), or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 covering purpose, parameters, and output. It front-loads the core action and follows a logical structure. No redundant information is present.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and output fields. However, it lacks context on error conditions, prerequisite connections, or how the resolution actually integrates with the Frida ecosystem. An agent might need additional examples or caveats for reliable invocation.

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 compensates by explaining that 'target' is a process name or PID (string) and 'address' is a hex string with an example. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema. However, it could be more precise about the target format (e.g., whether PID as string is allowed) and the address prefix requirement.

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 ('Resolve a debug symbol from an address') and specifies the underlying API (DebugSymbol.fromAddress). It lists the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like frida_find_symbol_by_name, which slightly reduces clarity for distinguishing use cases.

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 this tool should be used versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical contexts (e.g., requiring an active Frida session). This omission makes it difficult for an agent to choose it correctly among many sibling tools.

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