frida_eternalize_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior but omits important details like side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the script after detaching (e.g., can it still be unloaded? does it become independent?). This lack of disclosure is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the 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 two lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear 'Args' section to identify the parameter. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter source, but lacks behavioral depth about the implications of eternalizing a script (e.g., how to reverse it, or whether it remains manageable). The missing behavioral transparency makes it not fully complete for an autonomous agent.

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 only indicates type 'string', but the description adds critical meaning by stating script_id is 'the ID returned by frida_inject'. This tells the agent exactly where to obtain the parameter, going beyond the minimal schema information.

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 specific action ('Eternalize a script') and its purpose ('so it persists after detaching from the session'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_unload_script (removes) and frida_inject (creates).

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want a script to survive detaching) and gives an important prerequisite: script_id must come from frida_inject. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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