frida_ls_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists local, USB, and remote devices, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., Frida server running), potential side effects, or return format, leaving some opacity for a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with zero parameters, and the description covers its core functionality. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so the lack of explicit output description is not a gap. It could mention prerequisites, but for a straightforward list, it is adequate.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter details to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'Frida devices' and enumerates types (local, USB, remote). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_get_device (which fetches a specific device) and frida_add_remote (which adds a remote device).

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 for enumerating available devices, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools like frida_get_device suggest a more targeted use case, but no direct comparison is offered.

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