frida_get_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are redacted, retrieval is bounded, and a loss count is reported, which tells the agent that data may be sampled or dropped. It stops short of explaining cursor semantics (whether 'after' is inclusive), event ordering, or retention, which matter when paging.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource plus key traits. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the parameter and usage gaps noted elsewhere rather than being purely a strength.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and two required scoping parameters, the description leaves out which parameters scope the call, how to filter by hook, and paging behavior, so an agent could easily call it incorrectly.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it mostly doesn't. Only 'sequence cursor' (after) and 'bounded' (limit) are implied; the required device_id and session_id scoping, the optional hook_id filter, and the limit maximum of 500 are never mentioned.

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 ('Read') and resource ('trace events') plus distinguishing traits: bounded, redacted, cursor-based, and carrying a loss count. No sibling tool retrieves trace events, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but it is clear enough to select without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'by sequence cursor' hints at incremental polling, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus other frida tools, no advice on paging until the loss count or empty result, and no mention of prerequisites like needing an active session from frida_trace_method.

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