frida_add_remote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the connection action and protocol, omitting side effects like creating a persistent session, error behavior when the server is unreachable, or the state change implied by 'add'. The description is not misleading but is too sparse.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the minimal content it delivers.

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?

The description is minimal, with no annotations, no usage guidance, and no explanation of side effects. While an output schema exists, the description alone is insufficient for a connection tool—it should mention prerequisites like frida-server running remotely, the effect on the current session, and its relationship to siblings such as frida_remove_remote.

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%, and the description does not explain the host and port parameters. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Connect' and identifies the resource as a remote Frida server over TCP, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like frida_remove_remote and frida_detach. It states exactly what the tool does with scope.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like frida_remove_remote. There is no context about establishing a session or when a remote connection is needed.

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