Setup Android Frida Host

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 mentions installing components (Frida server and CA certificate) which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential device impacts, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a setup tool with zero 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and target, the second explains the purpose and what gets installed. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 setup/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks information about behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, or dependencies. Given the complexity of device setup operations, more context would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Set up a Frida host'), target resource ('Android device connected via ADB'), and purpose ('prepares the device for app-level interception by installing the Frida server and CA certificate'). It distinguishes from siblings like frida_android_intercept or frida_android_launch by focusing on setup rather than interception or launching.

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 implies usage context ('prepares the device for app-level interception') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like intercept_android_adb or other Frida tools. It mentions the need for ADB connection but doesn't provide guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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