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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' and 'system parameters,' but doesn't specify what kind of information (e.g., OS version, memory, connectivity), whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), or any potential side effects (e.g., if it requires device connectivity or permissions). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific device') and adds clarifying scope ('including system parameters'). There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context.

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 tool's moderate complexity (device info retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what ('detailed information') and scope ('system parameters'), but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., device availability). For a tool with no structured output, more context on expected results would improve completeness.

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 100%, with both parameters ('device_id' and 'device_type') fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool targets 'a specific device,' which aligns with the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Get detailed information') and target ('about a specific device'), including the scope of information ('system parameters'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'frida_list_devices' (which likely lists multiple devices) by focusing on detailed info for a specific device. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'frida_get_process_info' which might provide similar detail for processes rather than devices.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for device-level diagnostics vs. process-level operations) or when to prefer other tools like 'frida_list_devices' for enumeration or 'frida_get_process_info' for process details. Usage is implied by the tool name and description but not articulated.

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