Launch Android Frida Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('Must run frida_android_setup first') which adds some context, but fails to describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it starts a background service, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the device, or how it handles errors. For a tool that likely involves device interaction and server management, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core action ('Launch the Frida server on an Android device') and following with essential prerequisite information. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 launching a server on an Android device, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success indicators, error handling), side effects, or what the tool returns. The prerequisite mention helps, but for a tool with potential device-level operations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 ('proxyPort' and 'hostId') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what these parameters represent in the context of launching the Frida server (e.g., 'proxyPort' for network configuration or 'hostId' for device identification). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation burden.

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 ('Launch') and target resource ('Frida server on an Android device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'frida_android_setup' beyond mentioning it as a prerequisite, nor does it distinguish it from other Android-related tools like 'frida_android_intercept' or 'intercept_android_adb' in terms of functionality scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool by stating 'Must run frida_android_setup first,' establishing a clear prerequisite and sequence. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for iOS devices or other server types) or mention alternatives like 'frida_ios_intercept' for different platforms, leaving some contextual gaps.

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