frida_detach

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without specifying side effects (e.g., whether the session becomes invalid, whether the process continues running, or whether any cleanup occurs).

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, concise sentence that is easy to parse and free of verbosity. It earns its place by stating the core action, though it could have used the brevity to add useful context without becoming unwieldy.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is still under-specified. It lacks usage context, parameter explanation, and behavioral notes, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema defines pid as an integer, but the description does not explain its meaning or format. While the name implies it is the process ID to detach from, the description fails to clarify that it identifies the process session, leaving room for confusion.

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 action (detach) and the target (process session), which distinguishes it from siblings like frida_attach and frida_kill. However, it does not elaborate on what 'process session' means, leaving slight ambiguity about whether it refers to a session object or the process's attached state.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to detach instead of kill or resume, nor does it mention whether a prior attach or spawn is required.

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