Frida Agent MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Force stop' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions (e.g., root access), side effects (e.g., app data loss), error conditions, or confirmation prompts. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a purpose statement and parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose content.

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 (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it lacks details on safety, errors, or device state requirements, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'package' with a clear example ('com.example.app'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., valid package patterns) or edge cases, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 ('Force stop') and target resource ('an Android app by package name'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'launch_app' (which starts apps) and 'list_apps' (which enumerates them). The verb 'Force stop' precisely indicates termination rather than graceful shutdown.

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 implies usage when needing to forcibly terminate an Android app, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'detach' or system-level commands) or any prerequisites (e.g., device connectivity). It lacks clear exclusions or comparative context with sibling tools.

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