frida_get_device

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 discloses the default-device fallback behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention potential errors if the device is not found, whether a connection is required, or the return format beyond what the output schema presumably covers.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, especially the default-device behavior.

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 getter with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on error cases or how to obtain device IDs, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tooling for listing devices.

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 only defines device_id as an optional nullable string with no description. The description adds semantic value by explaining that omission (or null) means the default device is used, which is not evident from the schema alone. It could go further by hinting where to get device IDs (e.g., from frida_ls_devices), but it sufficiently compensates for the 0% schema 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 action ('Get info') and the target resource ('a specific device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_ls_devices which list devices. It also adds the key behavior of falling back to the default device when no ID is provided.

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 conveys clear context: use it to retrieve info for a named device, or rely on the default when the ID is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous given the sibling tool frida_ls_devices for listing.

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