frida_win_dotnet_list_assemblies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the two-step approach: trying CLR.enumerateAssemblies() first, then falling back to module enumeration with .NET metadata detection. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no fluff. It efficiently communicates platform, action, and fallback behavior.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description lacks details on return format or how to specify the target. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should provide more context about output and parameter format.

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% with no description for the 'target' parameter. The description does not explain what 'target' refers to (e.g., process ID, name, etc.), so it adds no meaning beyond the 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 enumerates .NET assemblies in a target process, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'Windows' and focusing on .NET assemblies, unlike other enumeration tools. The fallback behavior adds precision.

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 listing .NET assemblies but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It mentions the fallback strategy but does not clarify prerequisites or contexts like needing an attached process.

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