frida_target_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the attach vs spawn behavior and the collection process, including resuming after spawn. However, it lacks details on error handling or potential side effects.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by return data and parameter explanations. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, the description is fairly complete for a snapshot tool, listing return items and explaining 3/5 params. However, missing two parameters and lacking error/edge-case details reduces completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target', 'device_id', and 'spawn' with some behavioral context, but ignores 'module_limit' and 'thread_limit', which are two out of five parameters. Incomplete 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 verb 'collect a snapshot', the resource 'target', and the purpose 'before deeper analysis'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a general preliminary step, not a specific hook or analysis.

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 as a preliminary step ('before deeper analysis') and mentions 'recommended next tools', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No clear exclusions.

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