frida_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs the script, waits, then stops it, and that it is not a real interactive session. It also mentions the bounded time window and the dependency on frida-tools/frida-server. This is good behavioral context, though it could mention side effects like process termination or output capture details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key caveat (not interactive). Every clause earns its place: the bounded time window, the non-interactive clarification, and the dependency requirement. No fluff.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (non-interactive, bounded, dependency). It doesn't explain return values or output format, but with no output schema and a clear script-injection model, the agent can infer that output is whatever the script emits. The dependency note is valuable. Minor gap: no mention of how output is returned or what happens on timeout.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about the bounded time window and the non-interactive nature, which helps understand timeoutSeconds and script. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for parameters like mode, target, or workspace. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (spawn or attach to a process, inject a Frida script, capture output) and the resource (a process via Frida). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a real interactive Frida session, which helps differentiate it from potential sibling tools like frida_list_processes. The verb 'spawn or attach' is specific and the bounded time window is a key distinguishing trait.

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 states the requirement (frida-tools + matching frida-server) and clarifies that it is not an interactive session, which implies when to use it (bounded script execution) vs alternatives. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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