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 key behavioral traits: it detaches the current session, re-establishes adb forwarding, and reconnects, which are useful details beyond just the name. However, it lacks information on permissions needed, error handling, or side effects (e.g., impact on other tools), leaving some gaps in transparency for a recovery operation.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by specific steps in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, an output schema exists (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and post-reconnect steps. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or dependencies on other tools (e.g., requires 'connect' to have been called first), slightly reducing completeness for a recovery tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as it doesn't contradict or add unnecessary information.

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 ('Reconnect to the gadget after an app crash') and the resources involved (gadget, app). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' (initial connection) and 'detach' (disconnection only) by specifying it's for recovery after a crash, not initial setup or simple detachment.

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 ('after an app crash') and provides clear alternatives in the workflow ('After reconnect, restart the target app and call execute() again'), distinguishing it from tools like 'launch_app' or 'execute' that handle different stages. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for initial connection, use 'connect').

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