frida_ls_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return values (identifier, name, PID) and scope-dependent behavior (full includes version/build), which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or device connection behavior beyond using a default device.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, return value note, and bulleted parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to scan.

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 description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return values for a simple list tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish frida_ls_apps from frida_ls_apps_running, nor fully define the 'minimal' and 'metadata' scope values, leaving minor gaps in tool-selection context.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains all three parameters, including scope enum values and defaults. This fully compensates for the sparse schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 ('List') and resource ('installed applications'), and the parenthetical 'frida-ls equivalent' adds clarifying context. It also specifies the return fields, which distinguishes it from working with other Frida tools.

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 it should be used to list installed applications, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like frida_ls_apps_running or provide exclusion criteria. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is given beyond the purpose statement.

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