omni_dynamic_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that operations are live/intrusive (runtime memory dumping, process injection via Frida, arbitrary adb_shell), which hints at side effects, but it never states permission/root requirements, that frida_inject attaches to a running process, or that adb_shell executes arbitrary commands.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited capability list; dense with jargon but every clause names a distinct capability without filler. It could be split for scannability but wastes no 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?

This is a ten-action multiplexer with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description says nothing about what any action returns (dump artifact path, trace output, logcat format) or about per-action prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity, the definition is materially incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already explains action, target, payload, and timeout, including the emulation-range and payload-per-action formats. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names concrete verbs and resources: memory dumping, Unicorn x86/x64 instruction tracing, Frida script hooking, and ADB device control, plus named targets like Themida/VMProtect. It clearly distinguishes itself from most siblings by being the live-runtime/mobile instrumentation tool, though the multi-action grab-bag nature slightly blurs a single purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as omni_modern_unpacker or omni_deep_reverse, nor on which of the ten actions to pick for a given goal. The action enum implies usage, but nothing is stated about prerequisites (Frida installed, ADB connected, root) or exclusions.

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