frida_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait that this requires root (Magisk/su) and that it pushes a binary and launches a server process — real side effects. However, it omits idempotency, what happens if frida-server is already running, failure behavior, and any cleanup semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, default path, and the root prerequisite with no filler. Efficient, though the parenthetical could be structured more clearly.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema prep tool, the description covers purpose, default, and the root requirement. It still leaves the device-targeting parameter and the outcome of 'start' unexplained.

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 only 50%; serverLocalPath is documented in the schema, while serial is undocumented in both places. The description adds a default path (tools/frida-server) for the server path, but contributes nothing about how serial selects a device.

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?

States a specific verb pair plus resource: pushes and starts frida-server, framed as root-solution preparation. It is distinguishable from the smali/pull/static siblings, though it never names blackdex_prepare, its closest alternative preparation path.

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?

Provides the prerequisite 'needs Magisk/su', which tells the agent the device must be rooted, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against blackdex_prepare or other prep tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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