script_load

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 Frida injects V8 and makes standard APIs available, and it specifies the return format. However, it does not mention potential errors, permissions, or side effects (e.g., loading multiple scripts). Overall, it provides good behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a summary line, bullet-point arguments, context, and return format. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the level of detail is appropriate.

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?

For a tool with 3 required string parameters and no output schema, the description covers input, behavior, and output thoroughly. It assumes an active session, which is reasonable given sibling tools. Missing minor details like error handling, but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: session as session id, name for lookup, and source with context about available JavaScript APIs. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal property names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compile + load a Frida script (JavaScript) into a session.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the addition of 'into a session' distinguishes it from sibling tools like script_call (which calls a loaded script) and hook_method (which hooks a method). No ambiguity.

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 provides usage instructions via the argument list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is a prerequisite for script_call or when not to use it. The guidance is implied from context but not explicit.

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