Frida Agent MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the technical behavior (adb port forwarding, connecting to zygisk-gadget) and the prerequisite nature, but doesn't mention potential failure modes, timeout behavior, or what happens if the device isn't available. It adequately describes the core action but lacks operational details.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states the action, second explains the mechanism, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (connection setup), no annotations, 0 parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. Minor gap: doesn't mention what 'connected' state enables for subsequent operations.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no parameters are needed for this connection operation. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 specific action ('Connect to the Frida gadget on the device') and the mechanism ('Performs adb port forwarding (tcp:14725) and connects to the zygisk-gadget'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'detach', 'reconnect', or 'spawn_and_inject' by being the initial connection setup tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this before any other operation'), providing clear prerequisite guidance. It implies alternatives by positioning itself as the initial step, though it doesn't name specific alternatives like 'reconnect' for re-establishing connections.

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