frida_snapshot_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites (active session), runtime implications (qjs lacks Java/ObjC, v8 has them), and return type (Base64 snapshot). However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or whether the session is modified, which would be useful for a tool that creates a snapshot.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list with explanations, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant 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?

Given four parameters and no annotations, the description provides essential context: purpose, prerequisites, parameter meanings, and return format. It could mention error conditions or how the snapshot relates to other tools, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains all four parameters in detail: pid (with prerequisite), embed_script (source), warmup_script (optional), and runtime (with values and meaning). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Create a snapshot of a script') and its purpose ('for fast future loading'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like frida_compile_script or frida_eternalize_script. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 fast future loading but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compile_script or eternalize_script). It provides context like 'must have active session' and runtime choices, but no exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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