frida_query_system_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Returns', but does not explicitly state whether it alters state, requires special permissions, or behaves differently for invalid device IDs. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap for a system query tool.

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 and front-loaded, with only two short sentences. The first sentence conveys the primary purpose, and the second is a brief parameter note. No wasted words.

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?

While an output schema exists (and thus return values are structured), the description is vague about the exact contents of the dictionary. It does not mention potential error behavior or device availability. For a simple query tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 adds meaningful context for the only parameter: 'device_id: Target device. Uses default if omitted.' This explains the purpose and default behavior, exceeding the schema's bare type/default information. For a single parameter, this is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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 states 'Returns a dictionary of information about the host system', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like frida_ps or frida_ls_apps by focusing on system parameters. However, it does not elaborate on what 'system parameters' exactly includes, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternative tools that might be more appropriate. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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