frida_ssl_keylog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It describes the hooking mechanism and output format, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., process disruption) or permissions needed. Still, it is fairly transparent.

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 well-structured with a header, bullet points, and a usage tip. It is detailed but not overly verbose, though some information (like specific library hooks) could be seen as supplementary.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameters, mechanism, and usage. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but is largely 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: target (process name/pid), output_file (local path), duration_seconds (default 30). It adds meaning beyond the bare 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 extracts TLS session keys for Wireshark decryption, using specific hooks on BoringSSL and macOS SecureTransport. It uniquely identifies the tool among many frida siblings (e.g., frida_ssl_pinning_disable serves a different purpose).

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 explains how to use the output (point Wireshark to the file) and implies the tool is for capturing TLS keys. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but provides clear context for when it is appropriate.

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