inject_process

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: permission requirement (no admin needed, measured 2026-10), the integrity-level condition that actually causes failure (High vs Medium), anti-debug protection as a distinct failure mode, and forced session-context switching with context_switched/context_warning signaling. The idempotency claim matches idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false is consistent with a non-destructive attach.

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?

Front-loaded and generally well-organized, but the session-context switch is explained three times (first sentence, the dedicated paragraph, and again in the Returns section), and the '为什么必须切' rationale plus the token-reconciliation metaphor consume space without adding actionable information.

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?

For a zero-required-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers inputs, the return shape (ok, pid, init with module/base/api_available/api_missing/fallbacks, plus context_switched/context_warning), failure modes, and permission setup. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 carries the full burden and does: pid (blank → auto-locate main program), auto_find (whether to auto-search without pid), preferred_module (IL2CPP module name, auto-detected as GameAssembly.dll / libil2cpp.so). Each parameter gets meaning the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: injecting a runtime probe into a running game process. It also states the consequence (enables runtime_*/hook_*/drain_events) and the scope (one injection per process), which clearly separates it from siblings like hook_method or find_game_processes.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite relationship — the online tools runtime_*/hook_*/drain_events only work after injection — and that repeat calls reuse the existing session rather than re-hooking. It does not route the agent on how to obtain a pid (find_game_processes is a sibling), only that blank pid triggers auto-find.

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