frida_enable_spawn_gating

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that newly spawned processes are suspended until explicitly resumed, a key side effect. It could add detail about persistence or interaction with existing processes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the action, explains the effect, and lists the parameter in a clean three-part structure. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema provided), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, the behavioral consequence, and parameter semantics. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 Args section explains device_id as 'Target device. Uses default if omitted', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare default null. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the parameter's purpose and behavior.

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 a specific verb 'Enable' and resource 'spawn gating on the device', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_disable_spawn_gating. It also explains the effect of spawn gating, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool (to enable spawn gating, suspending newly spawned processes). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavioral explanation implies its use case well.

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