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 but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, memory usage, or output format (e.g., list of addresses). This leaves significant gaps for a memory scanning tool.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (memory scanning with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output expectations, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic 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 of 3 parameters have descriptions), providing a baseline. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'session_id' context or 'pattern' format variations), so it doesn't compensate for the partial coverage but doesn't detract either.

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 verb ('scan') and resource ('process memory') with the specific action ('for a pattern'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_search_strings' or 'frida_enumerate_ranges' that also involve memory operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'frida_search_strings' for string searches or 'frida_enumerate_ranges' for memory region listing. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an attached session) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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