frida_rpc_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rpc.exports requirement and naming conventions (snake_case vs camelCase), but does not mention return values, error behavior, or potential side effects on the target. This is moderate transparency, sufficient for basic use but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with a one-line purpose, and uses a clear 'Args' list for optional details. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler, making it highly efficient.

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 covers purpose, prerequisites, and parameter semantics, but lacks any mention of return value, error handling, or async behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, this omission leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all three parameters: script_id is defined as the ID from frida_inject, method includes naming convention guidance, and args are described as positional. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type definitions in the schema.

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 ('Call an RPC export') and the target resource ('an injected script'), establishing a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like frida_post_message (messaging) and frida_unload_script (teardown) by focusing on invoking exported methods.

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?

It specifies a clear prerequisite: the script must expose methods via rpc.exports. It also contextualizes usage by referencing script_id from frida_inject. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like frida_post_message, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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