frida_compile_script

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the script is not loaded, that the pid must have an active session, and that the return value is Base64-encoded bytecode. It also explains the behavioral difference between runtimes. This is solid transparency for a compile tool.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. Every element adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has three parameters and no annotations, but the description covers the purpose, each parameter, a prerequisite, and the return format. It also mentions that compilation does not load the script, addressing the core behavioral nuance. The presence of an output schema means return details are not required in the description, but it includes them anyway.

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 provides only types and a default for runtime, but no descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: pid (with active session requirement), source (JavaScript source), and runtime (with options and default). This adds complete meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Compile a script to bytecode without loading it,' which identifies the specific action (compile), the resource (script), and the distinguishing behavior (without loading). This differentiates it from sibling tools like frida_load_script or frida_snapshot_script.

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 clear context: the tool compiles rather than loads, requires an active session, and explains runtime choices (qjs vs v8) with their implications. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the 'without loading it' phrasing implies when to use it over loading tools.

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