frida_disable_spawn_gating

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining any side effects, prerequisites, or what 'disabling spawn gating' entails. There is no mention of device requirements, state changes, or reversibility, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that lead with the core purpose before explaining the parameter. No unnecessary or repetitive information is included, making it well-structured 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?

The description covers the essential purpose and parameter but omits broader context such as the operational impact of disabling spawn gating. While the presence of an output schema means return values are not needed, the lack of annotations and exclusions makes the description only minimally complete for a device-affecting operation.

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 description adds meaningful context for the sole parameter device_id by explaining it as the 'Target device' and clarifying that the default is used when omitted. This goes beyond the schema, which only indicates null default, and compensates for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage).

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 action ('Disable spawn gating') and the resource ('on the device'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool frida_enable_spawn_gating. The purpose is unambiguous and directly reflected in the tool name.

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. It does not mention any when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios, nor does it reference sibling tools like frida_enable_spawn_gating. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'disable' and the tool name, which is not sufficient.

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