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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'detaches' and 'unloads scripts', implying it's a cleanup/mutation operation, but doesn't specify critical details like whether this is reversible, what happens to session data, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is too vague for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('detach') and adds necessary context ('unload any injected scripts'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, prerequisites) to be fully complete.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('detach', 'unload') and resources ('current session', 'injected scripts'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reconnect' or 'kill_app', which might have overlapping cleanup functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reconnect' or 'kill_app'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in an active session) or exclusions (e.g., don't use if you need to maintain session state).

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