frida_kill

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 'kill' without noting side effects such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or impact on the Frida session. Error handling behavior is also not mentioned.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it is extremely minimal and lacks any structured detail like parameter descriptions or examples, which would make it more helpful without losing conciseness.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and an unknown output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain device_id, potential errors, or prerequisites. Given the many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide correct selection and invocation.

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 references 'PID' which maps to the pid parameter, but the optional device_id parameter is completely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, both parameters need description-level explanation, and only one is partially addressed.

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 'kill' and the target 'process' by PID, which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frida_detach (which detaches without killing) and frida_spawn (which creates a process).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use kill versus alternatives such as frida_detach or frida_resume. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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