frida_stalker_coverage

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that it attaches to the main thread and returns coverage data. It lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies Stalker state. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently covers key aspects without wasted words, ending with return format.

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, the description specifies return shape ({blocks, count}). It explains main parameters but misses 'output_file'. For a coverage tool, it provides enough context to use, though prerequisites (e.g., attached session) are omitted.

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 meaning for 'duration_seconds' and 'module_filter' by explaining their roles. However, 'output_file' and 'target' are not explicitly described beyond being required. Partially compensates for missing schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool collects basic-block coverage using Frida Stalker. It specifies attachment to main thread, records unique blocks during a duration, and allows module filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling stalker tools like frida_stalker_add_call_probe, frida_stalker_configure, etc.

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 implies usage for coverage collection but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_trace, other profilers). No when-not-to-use criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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