Frida MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the return value ('Returns the address of allocated memory'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether allocation persists, permission requirements, potential side effects (like process instability), error conditions, or that it's a write operation (implied but not explicit). For a low-level memory manipulation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and target, the second states the return value. Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-level memory allocation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address safety concerns, error handling, persistence of allocations, or integration with other memory operations. Given the technical complexity and potential risks of memory manipulation, more context is needed despite the concise structure.

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 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 - the description neither compensates for the undocumented 'session_id' parameter nor adds meaningful context about parameter interactions or constraints.

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 ('Allocate memory') and target ('in the target process'), with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like frida_memory_read/write/protect by focusing on allocation rather than manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all memory-related tools in the extensive sibling list.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including frida_memory_protect, frida_memory_read, frida_memory_write), the description doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., requires an attached session), appropriate contexts, or what alternatives exist for different memory operations.

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