frida_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but fails to mention that this is a state-changing operation, any requirements (e.g., process must be in a suspended state), or potential side effects. It also doesn't clarify whether the process must be attached or spawned by Frida.

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, concise sentence that gets to the point without verbosity. It could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness, but it is appropriately short for the core purpose.

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 part of a Frida lifecycle (spawn, attach, resume, kill), but the description does not explain its role in that lifecycle. Even with an output schema, the description lacks essential context about when a process becomes suspended and how the tool integrates with sibling tools.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (pid, device_id). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. The description should at least indicate that pid is the target process and device_id selects the device, but it remains silent.

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 explicitly names the action 'Resume' and the target 'a suspended process', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from siblings like frida_spawn, frida_attach, and frida_kill, none of which involve resuming suspended processes.

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 this tool, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., a process must have been previously suspended), or how it relates to alternatives like frida_kill or frida_detach. The description merely states the action without providing context for decision-making.

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