Frida Agent MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches log output and can clear the buffer, which are key behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, output format (though output schema exists), or side effects beyond clearing. This is adequate but minimal for a tool with mutation potential (clear parameter).

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and usage context, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and an output schema.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage hint, and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it lacks details on dependencies (e.g., device connection) and error cases, which could be important for debugging tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'filter' is a case-insensitive match on lines, 'lines' specifies the number of recent lines with a default, and 'clear' indicates buffer clearing. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, providing context for all three parameters. Not a 5 because it doesn't detail filter syntax or clearing implications.

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: 'Get Android logcat output' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Android logcat output'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_messages' or 'execute' by focusing on system logs rather than app messages or code execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'connect' or 'detach'), keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for debugging crashes after script injection.' This suggests when to use it (post-injection debugging) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites like needing a connected device, which is a gap given siblings like 'connect' and 'reconnect'.

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