Frida MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'Useful for debugging and analysis', which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires active debugging sessions, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or the format of the returned backtrace. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or output. There's no wasted text, making it efficient.

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 complexity of debugging tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, output format, and usage constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured support, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent invocation.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions), and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It doesn't explain the semantics of 'session_id' or how the backtrace is structured. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the missing details.

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: 'Get stack backtrace for a thread' specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('stack backtrace'), and 'Useful for debugging and analysis' provides context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_enumerate_threads' or 'frida_trace', which might also be used for debugging.

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 includes 'Useful for debugging and analysis', which implies a general context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit guidance is provided on prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'frida_stalker_trace' or 'frida_enumerate_threads'.

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