frida_kernel_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and a prerequisite, omitting behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., read-only), permissions, or return value format. This leaves the agent uninformed about safety and expected behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, followed by parameter details. It efficiently conveys key information without verbosity, though a more structured list could improve readability.

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?

The description covers the action and parameter semantics adequately for a simple scanning tool. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., what does it output?) and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_memory_scan beyond the kernel qualifier.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: 'address' should be a hex string, 'size' is byte count, and 'pattern' gives a Frida hex pattern example. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 scans kernel memory for a hex pattern, specifying the action and resource. The 'kernel' qualifier helps distinguish it from user-space memory scan tools like frida_memory_scan, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other kernel memory tools (e.g., frida_kernel_read).

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 mentions 'Requires kernel access' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_memory_scan, frida_checksum_memory). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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