frida_post_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only lists arguments and does not mention what happens on success/failure, whether it is asynchronous, if there are prerequisites beyond an existing injection, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a brief argument list. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the core action. There is no redundant or repetitive text.

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 simple with 3 parameters and an output schema that likely covers return values. The description covers the essential meaning of each parameter and the core purpose. It does not discuss edge cases or detailed behavior, but for a straightforward message-posting tool this is sufficient. It is slightly incomplete regarding usage prerequisites beyond the script ID origin.

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 must compensate. It does this effectively by explaining each parameter: script_id as the ID from frida_inject, message as JSON-serializable, and data as optional base64-encoded binary. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it could be slightly more detailed about message format or constraints.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a message to an injected script.' This distinguishes it from siblings like frida_inject (injects a script) and frida_get_messages (retrieves messages). The action is unambiguous and accurately reflects the tool's name.

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 context by noting that script_id is the ID returned by frida_inject, which tells the agent to use this after injection. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool, such as comparing with frida_get_messages or frida_rpc_call. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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