frida_get_messages

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 reveals that messages are 'drained', meaning they are removed after retrieval, and clarifies the message source (send() calls). However, it does not explain what happens when there are no messages, whether the call is blocking, or any side effects beyond draining. This is useful but not comprehensive.

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 action, and every word adds value. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easily skimmable, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is low-complexity with a single parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema is present (which likely defines return values). The description covers the tool's purpose and core behavior adequately. A note about empty-queue behavior or error handling would improve completeness, but it is not critical for this simple retrieval tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the missing parameter detail. The description mentions 'an injected script', which implicitly links script_id to the script context, and the parameter name is self-explanatory. However, it does not explicitly define script_id's role or format, relying on the user's understanding of Frida scripts. This partial compensation earns a mid-range score.

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 ('Retrieve and drain pending messages') and the resource ('an injected script'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_post_message (sends messages) and frida_list_scripts (lists scripts). The verb 'drain' adds specificity about the consumption behavior.

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 usage by explaining that messages are produced by send() calls in the injected JS, suggesting this tool is used to fetch those messages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully developed.

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