frida_xpc_intercept

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions hooking specific functions and best-effort receive, but does not state side effects (e.g., message modification, performance impact), required privileges, or whether it is read-only.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for usage, example) and could include parameter details without adding bulk.

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 sparse parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, capture destination, or how duration and output_file affect behavior. User would need external knowledge to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the three parameters (target, duration_seconds, output_file). The user receives no help understanding what values to provide.

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 it captures XPC messages using a bundled script, specifying the hooked functions (xpc_connection_send_message and reply variants) and rendering method (xpc_copy_description). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like frida_linux_dbus_intercept.

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 does not provide any guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. It only states 'xpcspy-style' which may be familiar to some users but offers no explicit usage boundary.

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