frida_spawn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that spawning may time out on Android and suggests a fix, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects, return values, or default behaviors like auto_resume default true, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a neatly formatted parameter list and a helpful note. No wasted words; the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's seven parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, includes a troubleshooting note, and benefits from the existence of an output schema, so return values need not be described. A minor gap is that it does not mention how to obtain device_id or what happens on failure.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides clear explanations for all seven parameters, including types and defaults (e.g., 'default if omitted' for device_id, 'inherit', 'pipe', or 'redirect' for stdio), fully compensating for the schema's lack.

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 uses the specific verb 'spawn' with a clear resource ('a new process') and notes optional attachment, which distinguishes it from siblings like frida_attach (attach to existing process) and frida_inject. This is a clear, specific statement of purpose.

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 clearly states the action and includes a conditional alternative (frida_fix_usap) for Android timeouts, which provides concrete usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with frida_attach or frida_inject, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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