fuzzmind-frida-mcp

by fuzzmind

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
While each tool has a specific name and detailed description, the sheer number (275) creates inevitable overlap and potential confusion among similar tools (e.g., multiple hook tools for different platforms). Descriptions help differentiate, but the risk of misselection is moderate.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use the 'frida_' prefix with snake_case. There is a consistent pattern by subdomain (e.g., frida_android_, frida_kernel_). Minor inconsistency exists between verbs-first and noun-first ordering (e.g., frida_check vs. frida_android_content_provider_hook), but overall naming is predictable.
Tool Count1/5
275 tools is far beyond typical MCP server scopes (3-15). While Frida is a powerful toolkit, exposing nearly every API as a separate tool creates overwhelming complexity and poor usability for agents.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers an extremely wide surface: device management, memory operations, hooking across platforms (Android, iOS, Linux, Windows), file I/O, crypto, SSL, SQLite, .NET, etc. Virtually no obvious gaps for Frida-based analysis.
Average 3/5 across 275 of 275 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 1, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it says nothing about side effects, required conditions, or what happens after joining a portal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is not concise in a helpful way; it omits essential information and only repeats the tool invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the five parameters (address, session_id, certificate, token, acl).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Session.join_portal().' is a tautology that only restates the tool name, without indicating what the tool does or what a portal is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_session_leave_portal or other portal-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the method call without explaining side effects, read-only status, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but fails to convey meaning; under-specification is not conciseness. Lacks essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no parameter descriptions, no annotations. The description is wholly inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the only parameter (device_id). No explanation of its purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Device.is_lost()' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what 'is_lost' means in the context of Frida devices. No indication of what the tool checks or returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like frida_device_get_matching or frida_get_device_info. No usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 does not mention side effects (e.g., disconnection, state changes), required permissions, or any risks associated with unpairing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word is necessary but insufficient for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description does not explain the tool's return value, error conditions, or context (e.g., when pairing must exist). It is completely inadequate for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (device_id) with schema description coverage at 0%. The description adds no meaning about the parameter, such as its purpose, format, or when to provide it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Device.unpair()' is a tautology, restating the tool name without explaining what unpairing a device means in the Frida context. It fails to provide any specific verb or resource differentiation from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_device_get_matching or frida_disconnect. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides none: no indication of whether it requires a connected device, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. The description is merely a function call invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, this is a case of under-specification rather than conciseness. It saves space but lacks essential information, making it unhelpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thoroughly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, parameters, return value, or behavior, failing to provide a complete picture for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'module_name' or 'protection'. It does not explain expected formats, valid values, or how they affect the operation, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a tautology, merely restating the function name 'Call Kernel.enumerateModuleRanges()' without explaining what the tool does. It fails to indicate that it enumerates memory ranges of a specific kernel module with a protection filter, and does not distinguish it from siblings like frida_kernel_enumerate_modules or frida_kernel_enumerate_ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits: what happens if the module is already initialized, error conditions, side effects, or concurrency behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value; this single sentence does not earn its place by providing useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (Frida module initialization), the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is vastly incomplete. It lacks details on return values, prerequisites, and integration with other module tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning. Parameters 'target' and 'module_name' are not explained; their semantic purpose is unclear (e.g., target could be a device or process).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call GumJS Module.ensureInitialized()' is a tautology, restating the tool name without explaining the purpose. It does not specify the action or result (e.g., ensures a Frida module is initialized), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance provided. The description gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_module_load or frida_get_module_base, or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it omits any details about side effects, return values, or required permissions. The agent has no way to infer what happens when calling this function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to be useful; it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, and this single sentence adds none.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Frida tools, the lack of an output schema, and the need to understand how this tool interacts with others (e.g., set_log_handler, reset_log_handler), the description is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no extra meaning to the two parameters (script_id, session_id). The schema itself provides only minimal titles, leaving the agent without guidance on acceptable values or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Script.get_log_handler().' is a tautology that merely restates the function name without explaining what obtaining a log handler means or what the tool accomplishes. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like frida_script_set_log_handler or frida_script_reset_log_handler.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, limitations, or context for its invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details—no side effects, prerequisites, authorization needs, or return behavior. The description is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the cost of usefulness. It fails to provide any meaningful information, making it ineffective rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and a description that adds nothing, the tool definition is completely inadequate for an AI agent to understand how to invoke or use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema itself. The description adds zero information about the three parameters (session_id, stun_server, relays). It does not explain their purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely repeats the tool name as a function call without stating what the tool does or what resource it affects. It is a tautology: 'Call Session.setup_peer_connection().' No verb-resource clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Dozens of sibling session tools exist (e.g., frida_session_compile_script, frida_session_recover), but the description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it gives no information about side effects, read-only nature, required device state, or return format. The agent gains no insight into what calling this method entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, but this single sentence repeats the tool name without providing useful information. It lacks essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is severely incomplete. The description does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent unable to determine how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to 'target' or 'device_id'. The agent has no clues about what values to provide or how they affect behavior, making the schema insufficiently documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Device.get_process()' is a tautology that merely echoes the function name without explaining what the tool does. While the name suggests retrieving a process, the description fails to clarify the purpose or distinguish it from similar tools like 'frida_device_get_matching' or 'frida_get_device_info'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to alternatives. The description provides no context for appropriate usage, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the tool has side effects, requires a session, or is read-only. The agent has no insight into what happens when this tool is called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but at the expense of usefulness. It is under-specified, not concise in a helpful way. The single sentence provides no structure or key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool and absence of output schema, annotations, or parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's operation or results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no param explanations in the description, the agent cannot understand the meaning of the three required parameters: target, name, source. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Call GumJS Script.evaluate()' but does not explain what this function does. It repeats the tool name essentially, lacking context on its purpose within Frida. It does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_eval or frida_interactive_eval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the allocation is destructive, side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes. The agent has no insight beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely brief, the description is under-specified. It lacks necessary details about the tool's behavior and parameters, making it more 'insufficient' than 'concise.'
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what Kernel.alloc does, how the size parameter affects behavior, and what the return value represents. It provides none of this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the 'size' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must guess the format, units, or constraints (e.g., size range, alignment). The description is completely silent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Kernel.alloc()' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not explain that it allocates kernel memory or distinguish it from similar tools like frida_memory_alloc, which allocates user-space memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_memory_alloc, frida_kernel_read). The description offers no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, and the description only repeats the API call. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as safety, side effects, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the cost of missing critical information. The single sentence does not earn its place as it provides no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of kernel enumeration and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is wholly incomplete. It fails to explain what ranges are, what the protection parameter does, or what the return value is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 'protection' parameter beyond its default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Kernel.enumerateRanges()' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify the purpose or differentiate from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_ranges (user-space) or frida_kernel_enumerate_module_ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. No indication of when to use this tool over other enumeration tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation might overwrite existing data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it under-specifies the tool's functionality. It sacrifices necessary information for brevity, making it less useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to understand or use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (target, dst, src, size). The parameter names are self-explanatory only to Frida experts, but the description does not clarify their roles or expected formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states 'Call GumJS Memory.copy()', which is vague. It does not clarify what memory copying entails, such as copying data from one memory location to another. The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_memory_alloc, frida_memory_dup, or frida_write_memory. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, safety profile, or prerequisites. The description is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is too minimal to be useful. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information; here it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context like return value, parameter constraints, or typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'target', 'address', and 'size' mean. The parameter names alone are insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description merely states 'Call GumJS Memory.dup()', which reveals the internal API call but not the user-facing purpose. It does not clearly state what Memory.dup does (e.g., duplicates a memory region). This makes the tool's goal ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_memory_copy, frida_memory_read, etc. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must describe behavior. It only states the API call, omitting side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return values. This is insufficient for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information, making it unhelpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Frida tools, the absence of annotations and output schema, and the large set of sibling tools, the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no contextual completeness for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'target' and 'name'. It does not explain what they represent, leaving users to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the underlying GumJS method call but does not explain what the method does. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_find_export_by_name, leaving the purpose ambiguous for users unfamiliar with GumJS.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required device state, side effects, or error handling. The description is virtually empty of behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but at the expense of clarity and completeness. It does not effectively communicate the tool's purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or sibling differentiation, the description is grossly insufficient. It provides no actionable information for an AI agent to correctly select or invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'device_id' has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of its meaning, format, or behavior when null. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the function name 'Device.enumerate_pending_children()' with a generic verb 'List'. It does not explain what 'pending children' are, making the purpose vague and failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'frida_pending_spawn_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only states 'list' without indicating whether this operation consumes pending spawns, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The method name suggests enumeration, but this is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. A single line referencing an API call does not earn its place as it provides no additional value over the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what the return value represents. The minimal context leaves the agent guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description contains zero information about the `device_id` parameter. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description should have explained the parameter's purpose, default value, or usage. It fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Device.enumerate_pending_spawn().' is essentially a tautology, restating the function call without explaining what 'pending spawn' means or distinguishing from related tools like frida_await_spawn or frida_spawn_with_options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_await_spawn or frida_list_processes. The user is left without any context about the appropriate scenario for listing pending spawns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns, side effects, or error conditions. The description is a mere code snippet without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but underspecified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks crucial information, making it unhelpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites, or what to do after calling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter session_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond its name. No details on valid values or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Call Session.is_detached()', which indicates the action but does not explain the semantic purpose of checking if a session is detached. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_list_sessions or frida_session_resume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No context about prerequisites or expected outcomes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no behavioral description, the agent cannot infer what this tool does beyond calling a method. It does not disclose whether it modifies device state, requires permissions, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is very short, it is not concise in a helpful way. It sacrifices essential information for brevity, leaving the agent underinformed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral context, the description is severely incomplete. It barely tells the agent what the tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters beyond listing their names in the method call. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the agent has no semantic meaning for 'name', 'value', or 'device_id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the function call ('Call Device.override_option(name, value)') without explaining what 'override_option' does. It fails to convey the purpose, such as what kind of option is being overridden or its effect, and does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large list of sibling tools like frida_device_get_matching, frida_device_get_process, etc., the agent has no contextual clues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states to call the method without indicating whether it's read-only, if it modifies state, or requires any special permissions. The name implies query but no explicit confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits necessary information. Every sentence is uninformative, failing to earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no annotations, no output schema, and only one optional parameter, the description provides no context about return values, parameter usage, or behavior. It is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the only parameter, `device_id`. The description adds no meaning beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'Call Device.query_system_parameters().' which barely adds meaning beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what system parameters are or what the function returns, making it essentially a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description provides no context about differentiating factors or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral information. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or any other behavior beyond calling the function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. It lacks substance and does not earn its place as it provides minimal value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's behavior, return values, or proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three required parameters (target, name, source_map_json). The parameters remain ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call GumJS Script.registerSourceMap()' is a tautology of the tool name. It restates what the tool does via its name without explaining the purpose of registering a source map.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits whatsoever—no mention of permissions, destructiveness, side effects, or error conditions. The description adds zero transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to earn its single sentence by omitting critical information, making it inadequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a kernel protection operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks any context about the tool's inputs, behavior, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to any of the three required parameters (address, size, protection). The agent receives no clue about valid values or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Kernel.protect()' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not explain what Kernel.protect() does, leaving the purpose ambiguous. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like frida_memory_protect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or safety. The agent has no information about what happens during loading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise, it is severely under-specified. It lacks essential details, making it inefficient rather than helpful. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one earns little.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly or what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meaning or format of 'target' or 'path' parameters. The agent cannot infer usage from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call GumJS Module.load()' is vague. It states a function call but does not explain what loading a module entails or how it differs from many sibling tools like frida_module_ensure_initialized or frida_script_load.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent receives no context to decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states to 'run official gum-graft', omitting any details about side effects, safety, required environment, or what happens during execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey necessary information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence does not suffice.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose in context, prerequisites, return values, or how it relates to other Frida tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about parameters. The four parameters (input_path, output_path, extra_args, timeout_seconds) are not explained, so the agent cannot understand their purpose or format beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Run official gum-graft when available', which provides a verb and resource. However, 'gum-graft' is domain-specific jargon without explanation. It distinguishes from siblings by name but lacks sufficient clarity for general understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With hundreds of sibling tools, the agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description gives no behavioral details such as whether the operation is blocking, what events it produces, or side effects. The term 'bounded window' is undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Critical information is missing, so brevity is detrimental.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description fails to explain return values, parameter roles, or how it fits into the larger Frida workflow. It is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to parameters like target, duration_seconds, or event_limit. The agent cannot infer what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it calls a specific API for 'a bounded window', but it does not explain what a module observer is or what attaching it does. It distinguishes only by referencing the API name, but among siblings like frida_process_attach_thread_observer, the differentiation is minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., thread observer), nor any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral information beyond the tool name. It does not disclose whether the tool lists instances, modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. With no annotations to supplement, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short (3 words), it sacrifices essential context. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity. The one-line sentence provides no structure or additional value, making it minimal to the point of being uninformative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, no annotations, and a high number of sibling tools, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, return format, or how it integrates with other Frida operations. The description fails to bridge the gap left by missing structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 4 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description adds no information about them. The agent cannot infer what 'target', 'class_name', 'limit', or 'duration_seconds' mean from the description alone. This forces reliance on the schema titles, which are insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Java.choose()' restates the tool name without explaining what Java.choose() does or how it differs from sibling tools like frida_java_hook_method or frida_java_call. It assumes prior knowledge of Frida's Java API, making it vague for an AI agent unfamiliar with the specific function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many related sibling tools (e.g., frida_java_hook_method, frida_java_list_classes), but the description does not indicate scenarios where Java.choose() is appropriate, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a minimal description, the agent cannot infer side effects, destructiveness, or safety. 'Create' implies mutation but no details on impact on session or existing scripts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it lacks critical information. While brevity is valued, the omission of essential detail makes it under-specified, not efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and numerous sibling tools, the description is wholly incomplete. It fails to equip the agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (embed_script, warmup_script, session_id, runtime). The agent cannot determine what values to provide or their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (create) and resource (script snapshot), but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name, repeating the function call. It does not explain what a script snapshot is or how it differs from other script-related tools like frida_script_load or frida_session_compile_script.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The agent is left without any direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Summarize Android readiness' without explaining what readiness entails, whether it checks frida server, permissions, or other prerequisites, or if it has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but is underspecified rather than concise. It fails to earn its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide complete context. It does not explain what output is generated, what prerequisites are, or when to use this tool. The result is grossly inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to 'package', 'device_id', or 'adb_serial'. This is a complete failure to aid the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Summarize Android readiness' which contradicts the tool name 'prepare'. It does not clearly state the tool's purpose or distinguish it from numerous sibling tools that perform specific Frida operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_android_frida_server_install or frida_android_frida_server_status. The context of use is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it blocks (synchronous), what it returns, or side effects. The description carries the full burden but provides no insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but is under-specified. It provides minimal information, sacrificing value for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 required params, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what results to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any of the 4 required parameters (target, address, size, pattern). Users have no idea what these parameters mean.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call GumJS Memory.scanSync()' states a specific action (calling a function) but does not explain what that function does or why it's useful. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the 'sync' suffix, but lacks clarity on the overall purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is a sibling 'frida_memory_scan' which likely is the async version, but no comparison or usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'open and send one request' without mentioning side effects, error handling, service lifecycle, or return behavior. Completely insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short (one sentence), but under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters and no other documentation. Conciseness without substance is inadequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The tool combines opening and sending but gives no details on return values, prerequisites, or lifecycle. Far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. Parameters like 'address' and 'params_json' are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it opens a service and sends one request, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_service_open and frida_service_request_by_id. The verb+resource is present but ambiguous regarding combined action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., opening separately or using request by ID). No context about prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it adds and removes a probe, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it logs calls, impacts performance, or requires specific permissions). Without annotations, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical details and does not earn its place by providing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the probe does, how duration_seconds affects behavior, and what the return value is. It fails to do so.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (target, address, duration_seconds). The agent cannot infer what each parameter represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions calling Stalker.addCallProbe() and removing it, which indicates the basic action but does not clarify the purpose of the probe (e.g., monitoring function calls). It is slightly above tautology but lacks functional explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_stalker_configure, frida_stalker_coverage, or other hooking tools. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions needed, or what state is modified. For a tool that likely invalidates some stalker state, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), but conciseness is only valuable if the content is sufficient. Here, it is under-specified, so it does not earn full marks. It is not verbose, but it lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with no descriptions, no output schema, and no behavioral disclosure, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It is inadequate for an agent to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (target, address, thread_id). The agent has no way to understand what these parameters mean or how to use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is essentially a tautology: 'Call Stalker.invalidate().' It restates the tool name without explaining what 'invalidate' does or how it differs from sibling tools like frida_stalker_coverage or frida_stalker_configure. The purpose is vague, lacking specific verb and resource clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The description does not help the agent decide between this and other tool calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description states 'Forget a bus event queue' implying removal but does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, or when queue is fully forgotten. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (one sentence) but underspecified. Lacks necessary details; cannot earn its place without substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, annotations, or parameter details, the description fails to provide enough context for a 1-param tool in a complex domain like Frida bus.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The param bus_id has no explanation in description. Agent cannot infer what bus_id represents or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Forget a bus event queue' which indicates a verb (forget) and resource (bus event queue). However, 'forget' is ambiguous; it likely means detach or remove but not explicitly clear. Resource is identifiable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like frida_bus_attach, frida_bus_get_events, or frida_bus_post. Lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Find a device' without disclosing behaviors like connection, blocking, error handling, or the effect of the timeout parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, but it is under-specification rather than efficient clarity. It fails to provide essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, matching behavior, or how timeout affects the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (type, name_contains, timeout). The agent must infer from parameter names only, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Find a device' which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_device_get_usb or frida_device_get_remote. The reference to DeviceManager.get_device_matching() is implementation detail, not clarifying the matching criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or what happens if no interceptor is active. With no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should earn its place; this one is too vague to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 required params, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameters, or effects, leaving the AI agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two required parameters ('target' and 'address'). The parameter names are generic and unexplained, leaving an AI agent without guidance on what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call GumJS Interceptor.revert().' identifies the action but is very terse. It does not specify what exactly is being reverted (e.g., a previously attached interceptor) nor distinguishes it from sibling tools like `frida_interceptor_flush` or `frida_interceptor_replace`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description lacks context about expected use cases or conditions, such as requiring an active interceptor hook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('install') but does not mention side effects (e.g., modifies local environment), required permissions, or whether it is destructive. The method reference 'PackageManager.install()' is vague and insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise but severely under-specified. Important details are omitted, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex sibling set, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to cover return values, prerequisites, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (project_root, role, specs, omits). Without parameter explanations, an AI agent cannot understand how to fill them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Install Frida packages with PackageManager.install()' uses a verb and resource, but 'Frida packages' is ambiguous – it could refer to packages for Frida itself or packages to install via Frida. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_package_search or frida_package_registry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple package-related siblings, but the description provides no contextual cues or conditions for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'send a request', which implies a mutation, but does not explain side effects, error conditions, or the nature of the request. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which might appear concise, but it is severely under-specified. It does not provide enough information for an AI agent to use the tool correctly, making it an instance of under-specification rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the Frida ecosystem with many sibling tools, no annotations, no output schema, and two un-described parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide essential context about how to construct a request, what the response is, or how it relates to other service operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which itself has no descriptions. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify the purpose and format of 'service_id' and 'params_json', but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'send a request' and the resource 'open device service', providing a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what the request does, what a service is, and does not differentiate from the sibling 'frida_service_request' which likely performs a similar action without an ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other service-related tools. Prerequisites like requiring an open service are only implied by the phrase 'open device service'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions starting a watch and queuing events but does not explain the lifecycle (e.g., whether it's blocking, how events are retrieved, or side effects). The existence of sibling tools like 'frida_compiler_watch_get_events' suggests a workflow, but this is not mentioned, leaving the agent uninformed about important behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of a single sentence. While this avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure is acceptable for the length but does not earn its place by providing sufficient information for tool invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and is part of a larger workflow (with siblings for getting events and stopping), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, event handling, or how this tool fits into the broader Frida compiler toolset. The agent would likely misuse or misunderstand the tool without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to any of the 9 input parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'entrypoint', 'project_root', or other parameters do. The agent has no guidance on how to set these fields correctly, making parameter usage entirely reliant on external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Start Compiler.watch() and queue compiler events', which identifies a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks context about what this watch operation entails and how it differs from similar tools like 'frida_compiler_build' or 'frida_compiler_watch_stop'. The purpose is clear but not sufficiently detailed for an agent unfamiliar with the Frida compiler framework.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a session or having a compiler set up), nor any indication of when to avoid using it. The description is purely functional with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, required permissions, or lifecycle considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description omits essential information like parameter details and usage context, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete, failing to explain subscription behavior or event sources.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'subscribe' and the resource 'official DeviceManager/Device/Session events', distinguishing it from siblings like frida_event_get_events and frida_event_unsubscribe. However, it lacks detail on which specific events are covered.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no context for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the fact that it calls a function. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it fails to mention side effects, prerequisites, or what 'flushing' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is not structured to provide essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, no annotations, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not equip the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'target' is required but completely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'call GumJS Interceptor.flush()' which is specific and mentions the exact function. However, it does not explain what Interceptor.flush() does, leaving the purpose vague for those unfamiliar with GumJS.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like frida_interceptor_replace or frida_interceptor_revert. The description lacks any usage context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description merely says 'Call...' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, requires certain permissions, or affects system state. It fails to compensate for the missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and informative content. It conveys the bare minimum but is not effectively front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is extremely incomplete. It does not cover return values, parameter semantics, or any behavioral context. Given the complexity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema, many siblings), the description provides almost no useful guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the two required parameters ('target' and 'address'). Without any semantic context, the agent cannot determine how to correctly supply these values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it calls GumJS Memory.checkCodePointer(), identifying the specific function. However, it does not explain what this function does, making it vague for users unfamiliar with GumJS. It minimally differentiates from siblings by naming the exact API but lacks clarity on its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about typical usage scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says it calls two ObjC functions but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether state is modified. This is insufficient for understanding behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which could be good if it were information-dense, but it lacks substance. It is not overly verbose but sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 required params, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, how binding works, or how this tool relates to other ObjC tools. The agent cannot confidently use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at the ObjC functions, without clarifying what 'target', 'object_address', or 'data' mean. The agent gets no added meaning beyond the schema types and names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it calls ObjC.bind() and ObjC.getBoundData(), implying it both binds data to an object and retrieves bound data. However, it is vague whether this is a combined operation or separate invocations. Among siblings like frida_objc_call_method and frida_objc_inspect_object, the purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the function name without adding context like read-only nature, side effects, or data source limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of being under-specified. It is a single sentence that does not effectively front-load critical information about usage or parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the need to explain 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide context for return values or behavior, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, offset, limit) or their purpose, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'Frida packages', indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_package_install or frida_package_registry, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when searching is appropriate or when other package-related tools should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or output behavior. It merely restates the function name without additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substance. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no actionable information beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is grossly incomplete. For a tool with 4 parameters, this single sentence is entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the 4 parameters (js_code, session_id, name, runtime). The agent must rely solely on the parameter names, which are insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (compile script source) and references the underlying API (Session.compile_script()). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_script_load or frida_gum_script_load, which also involve script compilation or loading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other script-related tools. No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where compilation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the method call. It fails to disclose effects, prerequisites, side effects, or any behavioral traits beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description is under-specified and lacks essential information. Conciseness is not a virtue when it omits critical context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Frida session management and the concept of child gating, the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no information about return values, preconditions, or relation to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'session_id' is not described at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema schema provides (which is minimal). Agents cannot infer how to use this parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies the verb 'disable' and resource 'child gating' on a session. It distinguishes from sibling frida_session_enable_child_gating by name, though the description itself does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as enabling child gating or other session operations. The description provides no context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining what a template is, how it is generated, whether it modifies state, or what the return value represents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks essential details, making it less effective than a slightly longer description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameter or the nature of the output, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'worker_source'. The description does not mention the parameter at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the bare schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies generating a GumJS Worker template, which is a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling template tools like frida_gumjs_template by specifying 'Worker'. However, it could be more explicit about the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other template tools such as frida_gadget_script_template, frida_sampler_template, or frida_code_writer_template. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'summarize readiness,' which is minimal. It does not indicate whether it checks connection, installs anything, verifies permissions, or what side effects it has.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It could include more useful information without being verbose, such as parameter roles or output expectation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of device preparation and the lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what readiness means, what the tool returns, or how the parameters affect behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (bundle_id, device_id). The agent cannot infer their purpose or how to use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it summarizes iOS/macOS USB-device readiness for Frida analysis, which indicates a checking/reporting function. However, it is vague about what 'readiness' entails, and while it distinguishes from Android sibling tools (frida_android_device_prepare), it doesn't specify the exact scope or output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_android_device_prepare or other Frida setup tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or typical workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. For a tool that sends messages, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too brief. It lacks necessary details to be useful, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is vastly incomplete. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The parameters portal_id, tag, message, and data_base64 are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their purposes and formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (narrowcast a message) and the resource (PortalService tag), distinguishing it from sibling tools like broadcast. However, it could be more specific about what 'narrowcast' means and what 'PortalService tag' exactly refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use narrowcast versus broadcast or post, or any prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API call but does not describe side effects, return behavior, error handling, or the meaning of parameters (e.g., event_limit, session_id, name).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential information. It is front-loaded but insufficiently informative, earning a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not cover parameter details, return values, or behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of any parameters. It only references 'compiled script bytes' without clarifying that data_base64 holds the bytes encoded in base64 or what the other parameters do.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (load) and resource (compiled script bytes) and references the underlying API. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_script_load or frida_script_load_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Behavioral aspects beyond the simple verb 'Start' are missing. No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose side effects, blocking behavior, or post-conditions. For a mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too terse—only six words. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified for an agent to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely lacking. It fails to cover return values, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about parameter meanings or usage. All four parameters (adb_serial, remote_path, as_root, listen_address) are left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start' and resource 'frida-server' on an Android device. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'frida_android_frida_server_setup' or 'frida_android_frida_server_install', which are distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Prerequisites (e.g., server must be installed) or scenarios (e.g., already running) are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors beyond the action, but it only states that it builds a bundle. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation), return value, or whether it requires a device/process, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary information, so the brevity is a liability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the build process, output, prerequisites, or any contextual details needed for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about any of the 9 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on parameter meanings, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema's titles provide (which are minimal).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Build' and the resource 'a Frida agent bundle', and references the underlying API method. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_cli_compile_bundle or frida_compiler_watch, which serve similar purposes but via different methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description simply states the action without offering decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Read queued events', which implies a non-destructive read operation but omits details like whether events are cleared after reading, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but fails to convey necessary information. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, or behavioral constraints, making it barely usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain parameters. However, it provides no information about 'watch_id', 'clear', or 'limit'. The agent is left to infer from names, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'Compiler.watch() events', making the purpose understandable. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like frida_compiler_watch (start) and frida_compiler_watch_stop (stop) but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it should mention that this tool should be called after frida_compiler_watch to retrieve events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'bounded capture window' but omits critical behavioral details: no mention of blocking behavior, output format, resource requirements, or side effects. The agent lacks understanding of what happens during execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but excessively minimal; it omits essential information. Brevity here sacrifices usefulness, making the description under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot understand how to invoke the tool correctly, what the capture window entails, or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. The agent cannot infer the meaning of 'target', 'mode', or other parameters beyond their names. This forces reliance on names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool runs the official frida-discover with a bounded capture window, which conveys the core action and scope. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools like frida_trace or frida_spawn, missing a chance to clarify its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for selection among the extensive Frida sibling tools, leaving the agent without usage criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It says 'read queued' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., the 'clear' parameter may destroy events), behavior on invalid subscription_id, or whether it is blocking. The 'clear' parameter action is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 7 words, it is too brief and omits essential information, leading to under-specification rather than concise clarity. Useful structure is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, parameter usage, or preconditions, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description says nothing about the three parameters (subscription_id, clear, limit). The agent gets no aid in understanding what subscription_id refers to, how clear affects event handling, or what limit controls. This is critical omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it reads 'queued official event subscription events', specifying the resource (events) and source (subscription). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_script_get_events, frida_session_get_events, etc., which may cause ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after subscribing with frida_event_subscribe. The description lacks context on prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal and does not disclose key behaviors such as automatic script unload after the bounded window, blocking behavior, or error handling. With no annotations, the description fails to adequately explain what happens during and after execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although the description is only one sentence, it is under-specified and omits crucial information. Conciseness should not compromise completeness; here, important details are missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how parameters influence behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not elaborate on any of the four parameters (target, name, source, duration_seconds). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no additional semantic context beyond parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Call GumJS Script.load() for a bounded window', indicating a specific function call with a time-limited scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'frida_script_load' by implying a bounded execution window, but the term 'bounded window' remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_script_load or other script-related tools. There is no context on prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behaviors but only says 'inject a library'. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or that it modifies target process. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but under-specified. One sentence missing critical context for a complex injection tool. Could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and description fails to mention return values, side effects, or post-injection behavior. Incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (target, library_base64, entrypoint, data, device_id). Agents have no guidance on parameter meanings or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it injects a library from base64 bytes, distinguishing it from sibling frida_inject_library which likely injects from file path. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like frida_inject_library. The description does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, resource requirements, return format, or safety. For a tool that likely captures runtime information in a target process, behavioral traits are critically underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but does not effectively use the space. It lacks structure such as parameter descriptions or usage notes, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential details like return value, error conditions, and usage context, making it nearly useless for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. The two parameters (target, duration_seconds) are not described; an agent cannot infer what 'target' refers to (e.g., process name/ID) or how 'duration_seconds' affects the backtrace capture.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool captures Java.backtrace() inside Java.perform(), which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates the action, but lacks detail on how the capture is delivered or used, and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like frida_java_hook_method or frida_callstack_tracer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or the type of application (e.g., Android Java processes) where this is applicable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Broadcast a message', omitting whether the operation is synchronous, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks critical information, and there is no structure to aid readability or comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how this tool fits into the portal workflow, how to obtain a portal_id, or the format of the message. The agent cannot use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the three parameters. The required 'portal_id' and 'message' are undefined, and the optional 'data_base64' is not mentioned at all. The agent cannot infer proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Broadcast' and resource 'message through PortalService', making the basic action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'frida_portal_narrowcast' or 'frida_portal_post', which reduces clarity for an AI deciding which tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no context about the PortalService. The agent receives no help in deciding whether broadcast is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only says 'create and start' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or behavior on failure. For a tool that likely modifies state, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence) but does not earn its place because it omits critical details. For an 8-parameter tool, this is under-specification, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any detail on parameter usage, return values, or behavioral nuances. The tool cannot be used correctly without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters, all optional with no descriptions. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, default behavior, or how they affect the PortalService. This makes correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: create and start a PortalService with EndpointParameters. It uses specific verbs and a resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_portal_stop or frida_portal_broadcast, which may be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or conditions for use are provided. The agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like overwriting existing files, permissions required, or side effects. It only states 'push' without any such details, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. It could be expanded with critical information while remaining efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what the return value is, or any dependencies. A fuller description is needed for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It mentions 'user-supplied' which relates to server_binary_path, but no information on adb_serial or remote_path, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'push' and the resource 'frida-server binary' to an Android device. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_android_frida_server_start or setup by focusing on the installation step, but could be more specific about the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as frida_android_frida_server_setup or start. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool waits for a spawn and optionally attaches/resumes, but fails to explain key behaviors: blocking until a spawn or timeout, side effects of attach/resume, handling of unmatched spawns (despite a resume_unmatched parameter), or return value. The timeout_seconds parameter is not mentioned, leaving behavior ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; front-loading the core purpose is good, but the brevity leads to incompleteness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the description is too short to convey essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain spawn matching semantics, return values, side effects, or how to use the numerous parameters. The tool's purpose is clear but the description lacks the depth needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'pattern' and the optional attach/resume concept, ignoring 7 other parameters: device_id, timeout_seconds, resume_unmatched, realm, persist_timeout, kill_on_disconnect. This is a severe gap; the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool waits for a spawn matching a pattern with optional attach and resume. It uses a specific verb ('Wait for') and identifies the resource ('spawn matching `pattern`'). While it assumes domain knowledge of Frida's spawn concept, it is clear enough among sibling tools. It does not explicitly distinguish from other spawn-related tools like frida_spawn_gating or frida_spawn_with_options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_launch_app, frida_spawn_gating). The description does not mention prerequisites, expected context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. This omission hinders effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the channel is 'kept for stream operations', implying persistence and the need to close it later. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, resource allocation, or whether blocking occurs. The agent lacks critical behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, it is too brief and lacks essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Frida tools, absence of output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or lifecycle management. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter information. The two parameters ('address', 'device_id') are not explained. The description only mentions 'raw device channel', which hints at device but not address. The agent cannot infer the meaning or format of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'open' and the resource 'raw device channel', with the purpose 'keep it for stream operations'. It is distinct from siblings like frida_channel_close, frida_channel_read, and frida_channel_write. However, it does not clarify what a 'raw device channel' is or how it differs from frida_open_channel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other channel tools or frida_open_channel. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided. The agent would not know when to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the command-line mechanism ('via frida -c') but does not describe what happens during execution, side effects, required permissions, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, concise and front-loaded. It earns its place but could be slightly more structured with key constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how the script is run, what duration_seconds does, mode options, or any call constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters, including the required 'target' and 'codeshare_uri'. Agents have no guidance on parameter semantics beyond property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs an official frida-tools CodeShare script via `frida -c`. It specifies the verb 'run', the resource 'CodeShare script', and the mechanism. However, it does not differentiate from other script-running sibling tools like frida_script_run_file or frida_gadget_script_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or mention any trade-offs compared to other frida script execution tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return value information. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) which is good for conciseness, but it sacrifices necessary details. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the brevity leads to incompleteness in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or usage context. A single sentence is insufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'arch' and 'pc'. It does not explain the expected values (e.g., architecture strings) or the role of 'pc'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'GumJS CodeWriter/Relocator template', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from many sibling Frida tools. While terse, it effectively communicates the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden but only says 'evaluate'. No mention of side effects, permissions, output, or whether it modifies target state. Parameters like exit_on_error, kill_on_exit suggest behaviors but are unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but omits essential details. Could be expanded without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. No hints about return values, error behavior, or how parameters interact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds no parameter details despite 11 parameters (including target, js_code, mode, etc.). Agent must infer all semantics from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool evaluates inline JavaScript against a target and equates to CLI `-e`. Distinguishes from interactive or script-based alternatives but could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like frida_interactive_eval or frida_gum_script_evaluate. The CLI equivalence hint is weak.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Generate,' which implies a write operation, but gives no details on side effects (e.g., file creation, permissions) or the generation process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address the tool's behavior, return value, or parameter usage, making it inadequate for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The tool description does not explain any of the 17 parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names and defaults alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a Frida Gadget configuration, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other Frida operations. However, it lacks specifics about the output format or content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or how it fits into a Frida workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states it returns a template without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is underspecified. It could include more detail without being overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description lacks detail about the returned template and its intended use. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'kind' has no description in the schema or the tool description. The default 'minimal' is mentioned, but no explanation of what 'kind' controls or possible values is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a Frida Gadget-compatible script template, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_gumjs_template or frida_code_writer_template, which may also return templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide context for selection or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Return an advanced GumJS template' without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise but lacks essential information; front-loads purpose but omits details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete and does not help an agent understand tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description provides no meaning for parameters 'kind' and 'symbol'; fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it returns a GumJS template for use with script_load, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling template tools like frida_gadget_script_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states the action, with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too minimal and lacks structure; it could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the two parameters and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides no context on how parameters affect behavior or what the result is, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of 'target' or 'duration_seconds', leaving the agent to guess. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calls Java.enumerateClassLoaders(). It is specific with verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling Java tools like frida_java_choose or frida_java_list_classes, leaving potential ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it unclear when this enumeration is needed (e.g., before hooking).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without mentioning safety, side effects, or errors. A snapshot tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (11 words), which is efficient but lacks sufficient detail to be fully useful. It is front-loaded but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, how to use the snapshot, or what happens with the optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on any parameter. 'Target' is required but undefined; 'address' and 'name' are optional with no format or meaning explanation. The description adds no value over parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it uses GumJS ModuleMap to snapshot modules and query by address/name, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_modules or frida_get_module_base.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The description implies a snapshot use case but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, interactions, or limitations. It only states 'Generate', implying a read-only action, but does not confirm safety or lack of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and organization. It conveys the basic purpose but no additional details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the generated template looks like, how it is used, or its format. For a Frida tool, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (class_name, selector, return_type, arg_types). The agent gets no help understanding what values are expected or how they interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates a template for ObjC.implement() method replacement, which is a specific and distinct purpose among sibling tools. However, it does not elaborate on what the template contains or its exact usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Open and close' but does not clarify whether it opens and then automatically closes, or if the user must also call 'frida_channel_close'. It also lacks details on side effects, synchronization, or expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it tries to cover two actions and a purpose in one go, leading to potential ambiguity. It is front-loaded with the verb but lacks structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain parameter usage, exact behavior (e.g., does it close automatically?), or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain the parameters 'address' and 'device_id'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is minimal. The agent gets no guidance on what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Open and close' and the resource 'raw Frida device channel', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'frida_channel_open' and 'frida_channel_close' by adding 'as a readiness probe', indicating a test operation. However, the dual action is somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for readiness probing via 'as a readiness probe', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'frida_channel_open' or 'frida_channel_close', nor does it provide usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Stop,' implying a destructive action, but omits prerequisites (e.g., portal must be running), side effects, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence). While it is not wasteful, it is borderline under-specified, missing important context that could be added without significant verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter, success indicators, or relationship to sibling tools like frida_portal_start.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no description for portal_id). The description does not explain what portal_id is or how to obtain it, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema's type-string definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop a PortalService.' clearly states the verb (Stop) and the object (PortalService), distinguishing it from the sibling frida_portal_start. However, it does not explain what a PortalService is, so it is not fully explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_portal_start or frida_portal_untag. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the tool performs a destructive operation (removal), but fails to describe side effects, required permissions, error states, or the impact on the connection. The description is too sparse to ensure safe and correct usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail. It is short but not optimally informative; it could be expanded slightly to cover parameters and usage without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 plain parameters, no output schema), the description should fully specify the tool's behavior. It fails to provide context about what a PortalService connection is, how the tag is removed, or what happens after removal. The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the three parameters. However, it only names the action without defining what 'portal_id', 'connection_id', and 'tag' represent. An agent cannot determine the meaning of these parameters from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a PortalService connection tag'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_portal_tag which adds tags, and frida_portal_enumerate_tags which lists tags. However, the term 'PortalService connection' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the tag must already exist, or when it would be appropriate to remove a tag instead of using frida_portal_tag or other tagging tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Generate' but does not mention side effects, return value, or whether it is read-only or mutating.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence is concise but under-specified. The description lacks necessary detail, making it insufficient for agent decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fails to explain what a Sampler template is, how it relates to other templates, or the output format. Incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'kind' parameter is not explained; its purpose and possible values are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it generates a GumJS Sampler template, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_gumjs_template or frida_code_writer_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is too brief to convey context for selection among many template-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only says 'enable' without explaining what enabling entails (e.g., starts a listener, opens a port, affects script execution). No side effects or requirements are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it only minimally adequate in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the debugger does, how the optional parameters affect behavior, or what the expected outcome is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (script_id, port, session_id). It provides no additional meaning beyond the bare parameter names and types in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Enable' and the resource 'Frida script debugger for a loaded script'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'frida_script_disable_debugger', so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a loaded script or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'export' but does not clarify if the operation is destructive (e.g., clearing events via the 'clear' parameter), whether it requires certain permissions, or what the side effects are.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks enough information. It could be expanded without losing conciseness to include important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (7 parameters, many similar siblings, no output schema), the description fails to explain what 'queued script events' are, how they are generated, or what the output file contains. Incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions output format briefly. None of the 7 parameters (e.g., output_path, script_id, clear, limit) are described, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (export) and resource (queued script events) with specific output formats (JSON or JSONL). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_script_get_events or frida_event_get_events that might retrieve events without file export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_script_get_events or frida_script_clear_events. Missing context on prerequisites (e.g., events must be queued first) or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Read queued events' without disclosing whether reading is destructive, requires a running script, or has rate limits. The 'clear' parameter implies optional event consumption, but this is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this sacrifices necessary detail. It is not optimally structured for clarity, as it omits parameter explanations and usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain event types, return format, parameter effects, or operational prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the five parameters (script_id, session_id, kind, clear, limit). Parameter names offer minimal hints, but the agent receives no semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Read queued events emitted by long-running scripts,' identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes script events from other get_events tools (e.g., session, bus) but does not differentiate from frida_script_get_log_events, which also pertains to scripts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_event_get_events or frida_session_get_events. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but does not mention side effects, like whether the 'clear' parameter removes events, nor does it explain queuing behavior or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not verbose, yet it is under-specified for an agent to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count (4), lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what log-handler events are, how they differ from other events, or how to use the parameters (especially 'clear' and 'limit').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'session_id', 'clear', or 'limit' beyond what the parameter names imply, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('queued Script log-handler events'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_script_get_events or frida_script_get_log_handler.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as frida_script_get_events for general events or frida_script_set_log_handler for setting handlers. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or side effects on the script. It simply states the action without further context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (single sentence), but it lacks necessary details, making it under-informative. Every word is efficient, but the content is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to use the binary data or what the outcome is, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not elaborate on any of the four parameters (script_id, message, data_base64, session_id). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Post') and the resource ('message plus binary data to a loaded script'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool frida_script_post_message, which also posts messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_script_post_message or frida_script_call_rpc. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Queue Script log-handler events for a loaded script', which lacks details on side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or what 'queue' entails. It does not state whether this sets the handler or enqueues events.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief and lacks structure. It does not front-load critical information like parameter hints or usage context, making it minimally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and low schema coverage, the description should compensate with more detail. It fails to explain the tool's role within the Frida scripting environment, how it relates to sibling log-handler tools, or what the return value (if any) represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose of the two parameters (script_id, session_id). The agent has no guidance on what values to provide, leaving it to infer from the names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Queue' and the resource 'Script log-handler events', making the action and object clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_script_get_log_handler or frida_script_reset_log_handler, and the term 'Queue' may cause confusion since the tool name says 'set'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_log_handler, reset_log_handler). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action ('cancel and forget') but omits side effects like resource cleanup, invalidation of the service_id, or error behavior if the service is not open. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but minimally informative. It front-loads the action ('Cancel and forget'), but there is no structure or additional details to guide usage. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the sentence 'Cancel and forget an open device service' is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, lifecycle implications, or how the service_id relates to other sibling tools like frida_service_open. The agent cannot use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage; the sole parameter 'service_id' lacks any explanation in both the schema and the description. The description does not clarify what service_id represents or how to obtain a valid value, leaving the agent without essential usage information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verbs 'Cancel and forget' with the resource 'open device service', clearly indicating the action of closing a service. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_service_open or frida_service_request, which handle opening and interacting with services. However, the phrase 'Cancel and forget' is slightly ambiguous and could be more precise, e.g., 'Close and remove the service handle.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the service must be open first). There is no mention of context, such as whether this tool should be called after finishing work with a service, or what happens if the service is already closed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects, safety concerns, required permissions, or return behavior, which is critical for a tool that likely modifies process memory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices essential information. While brevity is valued, the content is too minimal to be truly helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (5 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or usage context, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 required parameters with zero description coverage. The description adds no meaning to target, address, return_type, arg_types, or args, leaving the agent unable to interpret how to use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calls a native function using GumJS SystemFunction, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool frida_native_function_call, which likely performs a similar action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_native_function_call. The description lacks any context about when this tool is appropriate or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List adb port forwards,' omitting details like output format, behavior when no forwards exist, or required device connection state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices necessary detail. For a tool with an undocumented parameter, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter interpretation, or how this listing integrates with related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter (adb_serial) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify its purpose or usage. The agent would not know that it likely specifies which Android device to query.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('adb port forwards'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_android_port_forward (create) and frida_android_port_forward_remove (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as listing vs creating/removing. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for using the optional adb_serial parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions required, or side effects. The tool likely reads memory non-destructively but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but severely under-informative for a tool with four required parameters. It fails to front-load essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has four required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no information about parameter meaning, valid values, or formats. The agent cannot infer what 'target', 'checksum_type', 'address', or 'size' represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Compute') and the resource ('GumJS Checksum over a target memory range'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like memory scanning or hexdump by specifying a checksum operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_memory_scan or frida_hexdump. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description lacks behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., overwriting tags), reversibility, or required permissions. No annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but under-specified. Single sentence provides minimal information without earning its place; lacks structure or prioritization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fails to provide sufficient context given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. No explanation of PortalService, tagging behavior, or related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Parameters like portal_id, connection_id, and tag are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Tag' and the resource 'PortalService connection', making it specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_portal_enumerate_tags and frida_portal_untag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing context on prerequisites, when tagging is appropriate, or when to use enumerate/untag instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or lifecycle implications beyond 'long-running'. For a tool with 11 parameters, critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it lacks structured details such as parameter roles or usage context, which would improve usability without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter functions, return values, error states, or operational prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters beyond the schema's names and types. The only parameter hinted at is script_path via 'local JavaScript file', but others like name, event_limit, runtime, etc., remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'load', the resource 'local JavaScript file', and the purpose 'as a long-running Frida script'. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_script_load (which likely loads from string) by specifying 'local file'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_script_load or frida_script_load_bytes. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It fails to mention side effects, permissions, thread safety, or error conditions, which are critical for a hardware watchpoint operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) and does not earn its place by providing necessary detail. It is more under-specified than concise, lacking structure or bullet points that would aid the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain required parameters, return behavior, or usage patterns, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 7 parameters. For example, 'target', 'address', 'conditions' have no explanation of their format or allowed values, leaving the agent with only parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set or unset a hardware watchpoint with GumJS Thread API.' It specifies the verb (set/unset) and resource (hardware watchpoint), distinguishing it from related tools like breakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to set vs unset, or prerequisites like a running Frida session. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies the tool runs a trace for a set duration and stops, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the target), output behavior (e.g., where results go), or requirements like a running Frida session. Key behavioral aspects such as the effect of `quiet` or `decorate` are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure presents a command-line template followed by parameter explanations, which is reasonable. However, it omits important sections like output, usage notes, or examples for other parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (30 parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how tracing works, what the output looks like, or how to filter using the many exclusion/inclusion parameters. The agent cannot confidently use this tool without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for all parameters. It only explains two (target and include) with examples. The remaining 28 parameters, many with defaults and specific roles (e.g., mode, exclude, include_objc_method), remain completely undocumented. This severely limits the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool runs 'frida-trace' with specific filters, targeting a process, and for a given duration. It identifies the key parameters (target, include, duration_seconds) and provides examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling hooking tools like frida_hook_native_function or frida_intercept_objc_method, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a command template but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other trace or hook tools. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose between modes (attach vs spawn). The lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects like overwriting, error conditions, or behavior if server already running. Only mentions actions without detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but excessively sparse given tool complexity. Lacks structured details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Highly incomplete for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema. No explanation of return values, parameter meanings, or relation to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0% and description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The bare mention of 'user-supplied frida-server binary' adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (install, start, forward) and resource (frida-server binary). It distinguishes from siblings like frida_android_frida_server_install and frida_android_frida_server_start by combining these actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this combined tool versus the individual install/start/forward tools. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it's a check, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what 'can be bundled' means. The behavior is minimally described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of one sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, but may be too brief to convey important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter bridge_root is not explained at all in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameter or its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks whether Frida 17 ObjC/Java/Swift bridge packages can be bundled. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not distinguish it from sibling bridge-related tools like frida_bridge_install.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, differences from other tools, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'start queueing bus messages' but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The impact on other bus operations is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanation, the description is incomplete. The agent cannot infer return values, error states, or required conditions for use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (device_id). The description does not explain what device_id means or when to provide it, leaving the agent without essential guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'attach', the resource 'device bus', and the action 'start queueing', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_bus_detach or frida_bus_get_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where it should or should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lacks annotations. The description only states it's a read operation but does not disclose key behaviors such as whether reading clears events, if it is blocking, or what happens when no events exist. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, but it sacrifices essential detail. It is not well-structured as it fails to include parameter descriptions or usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 3 undocumented parameters, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent would lack the information needed to invoke this tool correctly, especially the impact of the 'clear' and 'limit' parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanations for the three parameters (bus_id, clear, limit). Agents cannot infer their meanings or defaults from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read queued bus events.' clearly states the action (read) and the resource (bus events). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_bus_post and frida_bus_attach, which are write or connection operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_bus_post or other event-reading tools (frida_event_get_events). Implies usage only through the resource name, but no explicit context or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or whether unsubscribing is permanent or reversible. The action is straightforward, but more context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence without extraneous information, making it concise. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the description is minimally adequate. It fails to mention prerequisites, what happens after unsubscribing, or any confirmation, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the required 'subscription_id' parameter. The schema only specifies it as a string with no additional context, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Unsubscribe from an official event subscription.' It is specific enough to understand the action, though it doesn't clarify what constitutes an 'official event' compared to other event types in the sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_event_subscribe or frida_event_get_events. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as synchronous vs async, error handling, or prerequisites. The minimal description fails to provide critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with one sentence, but it lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter purposes, required fields, or return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent has no understanding of what parameters like 'portal_id' or 'data_base64' mean. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'post' and resource 'message to one PortalService connection', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like broadcast or narrowcast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like broadcast, narrowcast, or get_events. The description lacks any context about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions a bounded window but does not explain what happens when the duration expires, how events are collected, or any side effects. Behavioral transparency is very limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. While it is efficient, the lack of detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations reduces its effectiveness. Still, it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (none described), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It does not explain the return value, parameter defaults, or the behavior beyond a bounded window.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (target, duration_seconds, event_limit). The agent cannot infer what each parameter controls from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it calls GumJS Process.attachThreadObserver() for a bounded window, indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'module observer' tool by the resource type, but does not explicitly highlight the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_process_attach_module_observer or any other sibling tools. The 'bounded window' hint is weak guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions auth/keepalive but omits side effects, error conditions, connectivity requirements, or return value. The agent cannot anticipate the tool's full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too terse and could benefit from additional brief details without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of adding a remote device (authentication, keepalive, network), the description lacks essential details like expected response, prerequisites (e.g., device reachable), and failure modes. The tool appears to be state-changing, but no behavioral completeness is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description vaguely refers to 'auth/keepalive options' but does not explain individual parameters like 'certificate', 'origin', or 'token'. The agent lacks sufficient detail to correctly populate the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add a remote device' with specific context 'official auth/keepalive options'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'frida_remote_device_remove' or 'frida_device_get_remote', though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It does not mention alternative tools for managing remote devices, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Call a function' but does not clarify side effects, whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous, or any requirements like the script being loaded. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At one sentence, the description is very concise but lacks necessary detail. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, and every word earns its place but does not convey enough information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, return values, or special behaviors, failing to provide adequate context for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the four parameters (script_id, method, args, session_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without meaning for the input fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Call a function') and the resource ('exposed through rpc.exports by a loaded script'), making it distinct from sibling tools. It provides a specific verb and resource, ensuring no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_eval or frida_script_post_message. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'unload' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the script is destroyed, if it can be reloaded, or impact on the session). The term 'long-running' is vague and not defined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is efficient but may be too brief, missing opportunities to add crucial information without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks necessary context such as return values, error conditions, prerequisites (script must be loaded), and the relationship to `session_id`. This is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameters and no other documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for parameters. `script_id` is merely mentioned, but no format or source is given. `session_id` is not addressed at all, leaving the agent uninformed about its purpose or when to provide it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'unload' and the resource 'long-running script', and references the key parameter `script_id`. Among many script-related tools (load, reload, list), this clearly distinguishes it as the unload operation. However, it does not clarify what qualifies as 'long-running'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `frida_script_reload` or `frida_script_eternalize`), nor does it mention prerequisites like the script being previously loaded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Read queued events', which is non-destructive, but omits important details like whether reading clears events, if it's blocking, or if it can be called multiple times. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 7 words). However, it is too terse for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail. Could be restructured to include parameter info without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanation of parameters, return values, prerequisites (e.g., service_id must be from an open service), side effects, and error conditions. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide significantly more contextual detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not. The 'clear' and 'limit' parameters have defaults but their semantics are not described. The tool description adds zero information beyond the parameter names from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('queued events'), and the context ('from an open device service'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling event-retrieval tools like frida_event_get_events or frida_session_get_events by specifying 'device service'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the service must be open but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the need to open a service first via frida_service_open) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects. It only states the method call without explaining what enabling child gating does (e.g., how it affects child processes, session behavior, or side effects). 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but at the expense of completeness. It is structured as a direct instruction, which is good, but lacks necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and complex sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the session_id parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all. The schema indicates it's optional and defaults to null, but the description adds no meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: calling Session.enable_child_gating(). It distinguishes from the sibling frida_session_disable_child_gating. However, it does not explain what child gating is, which may reduce clarity for agents unfamiliar with Frida.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., disable_child_gating) or in what scenarios child gating is needed. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Call Session.resume()' without disclosing effects, side effects, error conditions, or whether the session must exist or be in a specific state. The behavioral implications of resuming are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (3 words), which is concise but at the cost of informativeness. It is front-loaded but lacks important context. Every word is necessary, but more information would be beneficial.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's full behavior, return values (if any), or preconditions. For a lifecycle method like resume, more context is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'session_id' parameter. It does not explain what the default null means (e.g., current session?) or how to specify a different session. The parameter's semantic role is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call Session.resume()' clearly states the verb (calls) and the resource (Session.resume method). It implies an action on a Frida session. However, it doesn't elaborate what 'resume' does in context (e.g., resume a paused session?), but it is specific enough to distinguish from other session tools like frida_session_is_detached or frida_session_clear_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., session must be in a paused state) or exclusions. The sibling tools include many session-related tools, but the description offers no help in choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'without modifying the device' (implying read-only), but fails to explain what 'readiness' entails, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., adb connection).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but underspecified. It is not verbose, but brevity here sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no description of return values, error states, or usage prerequisites, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks critical context to invoke the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description does not mention or clarify any parameters, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond the schema field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Check Android adb/frida-server readiness' with a specific verb and resource. It also includes 'without modifying the device', which helps distinguish from mutation tools like frida_android_frida_server_install or frida_android_frida_server_start.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include other status-checking tools (e.g., frida_bridge_status, frida_device_is_lost) but no context is given for selecting this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose effects. It states 'Remove' indicating mutability, but omits important details: what happens if the forward doesn't exist, whether it requires a device connection, or if it interrupts active forwarding. The lack of behavioral context undermines safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence—but this brevity sacrifices essential detail. It is not bloated, yet the minimalism leaves gaps that could be filled without harming conciseness, such as parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to cover prerequisites, side effects, or parameter roles, which are critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (adb_serial, local_port). Their meaning, defaults, and usage remain undocumented, forcing the agent to infer intent without sufficient information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('adb TCP port forward'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like frida_android_port_forward (create) and frida_android_port_forward_list (list), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of a forward), error conditions, or scenarios where removal is appropriate, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states installation but does not mention side effects (e.g., network access, device modifications), required permissions, or idempotency. The description is too vague for an agent to understand the full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Still, it is efficiently structured for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 4 parameters (all undocumented), no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain return values, installation behavior, or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (bridges, bridge_root, save_optional, registry). The agent has no information on what values are expected or their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly specifies the verb 'Install', the resource 'Frida 17 runtime bridge packages', and the method 'using official frida-pm'. This distinguishes it from siblings like frida_bridge_status (status check) and frida_package_install (more generic).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., frida_package_install), no prerequisites, no mention of when-not-to-use. The single sentence lacks contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required channel state, or error conditions. The 'write_all' parameter's implication is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads purpose. However, it lacks structure but suffices for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It omits return values, error handling, and parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. No explanation of channel_id, data_base64 format, or write_all behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Write bytes) and the resource (open device channel), distinguishing it from sibling tools like open, read, and close.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as writing after opening a channel or avoiding write if channel is closed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided; the description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, or limitations beyond the return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes an example and return format without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and an incomplete parameter explanation, the description leaves significant gaps (e.g., what `target` refers to) that could hinder correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only explains `module_name` (with an example), but does not explain the `target` parameter, which is required but left undefined. Schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List exported symbols') and the resource ('from a specific module in a target process'), but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_enumerate_imports or frida_script_list_exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description provides no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions 'queued' but does not explain whether reading is destructive, the nature of lifecycle events, or any side effects associated with the 'clear' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 5 words; it is concise but lacks structure and essential information. It front-loads the verb and resource but stops short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling event tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, event types, or the effect of the 'clear' parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (portal_id, clear, limit). The description ignores parameters entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'queued PortalService lifecycle events,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like frida_portal_post or frida_bus_get_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as frida_event_get_events or frida_compiler_watch_get_events. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, safety implications, or what happens if the debugger is not enabled. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or include parameter details, but it is not overly verbose either.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how to properly specify the session. A more complete description would include parameter roles and usage notes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says nothing about the purpose of script_id or session_id, leaving the agent to infer from names only. This is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Disable' and the resource 'the Frida script debugger for a loaded script'. This is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'frida_script_enable_debugger'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when the debugger is already disabled, or prerequisites like the script being loaded). The description is too brief to convey usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions 'persistent session' but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or behavior when no session exists. For a simple listing, minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it could be slightly longer to add value without being wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and incomplete parameter descriptions. The description does not cover return format, pagination, or parameter behavior, making it insufficient for a tool with two optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose or expected values of session_id or kind, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (scripts loaded in a persistent session). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_script_load and frida_script_unload.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_list_sessions, other script-related tools). The description is too brief to indicate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as return behavior, error conditions, or whether a session is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too minimal and does not provide a structured breakdown of functionality or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter details, the description is incomplete. It does not cover what rpc.exports are, the role of session_id, or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions), and the tool description does not explain the parameters (script_id, session_id). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's field titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List rpc.exports exposed by a loaded script' clearly specifies the verb (List) and resource (rpc.exports), and it distinguishes from siblings like frida_script_list (which lists scripts) and frida_script_call_rpc (which calls RPC).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no context on prerequisites (e.g., script must be loaded), and no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action but omits details about side effects, error conditions, whether the operation is synchronous, or any required permissions or script state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It provides only the basic operation, lacking details on parameter usage, return values, and contextual prerequisites, limiting an agent's ability to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. It adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (post) and resource (message to a long-running script). It distinguishes from siblings like frida_script_post_binary by specifying 'JSON-serialisable message', but it does not explicitly differentiate from other script interaction tools like frida_script_call_rpc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It lacks context such as prerequisites, when to prefer this over frida_script_post_binary, or scenarios where this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions mode behavior and that it collects send() messages, but does not cover error handling, blocking behavior, resource cleanup, or side effects for 11 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, given the parameter count, it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., listing key parameters). No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Missing details like output format, default behaviors, and parameter semantics beyond mode.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters. Only mode is partially described (attach vs spawn). Other crucial params like duration_seconds, device_id, parameters object, etc., are not mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Run a Frida JS script against a process', indicating verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling hooks by being a generic script runner. However, could explicitly mention that it runs a file and is for Frida scripts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling script tools like frida_script_load or frida_gum_script_load. Only explains mode options (attach/spawn) but no context about alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states 'Clear lifecycle events', implying a destructive action, but fails to disclose details such as irreversibility, prerequisites (e.g., an active session), or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools, the description lacks context to distinguish it from similar clear/get events tools. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or prerequisites. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'session_id' parameter. It provides no guidance on its meaning, optionality, or how it relates to the clearing operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Clear' and the resource 'lifecycle events' for a 'persistent Frida session'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like frida_session_get_events and frida_script_clear_events, but lacks specificity on what constitutes lifecycle events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as frida_session_get_events or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Read', but doesn't mention if events are cleared after reading (implied by the 'clear' parameter), side effects, or idempotency. The description is insufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence without wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary details, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description doesn't mention return values, behavior of parameters, or how it relates to sibling tools. The description is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It does not explain session_id (default null meaning?), clear (mutating?), or limit (what it limits). The description adds no value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'lifecycle events for a persistent Frida session'. It distinguishes from other 'get_events' tools by specifying the session scope, though it could clarify what lifecycle events entail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_event_get_events or frida_script_get_events. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait 'without attaching', but lacks details on return values, asynchronous behavior, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient. However, it achieves conciseness at the expense of necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a single sentence is grossly insufficient. The description fails to explain parameters, return format, or usage examples.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. It only mentions 'exposing Device.spawn() options', leaving the user guessing the purpose of 8 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it spawns without attaching and exposes Device.spawn() options. This distinguishes it from attach-based tools and other spawning utilities in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_await_spawn or frida_launch_app. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose side effects or state changes. 'Close and forget' implies cleanup, but it doesn't clarify what happens to pending operations, error behavior, or if the channel must be valid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, but that is a completeness rather than conciseness issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose in a complex Frida ecosystem and no output schema, the description should explain the return value or success indication, preconditions, and any side effects, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter 'channel_id' (e.g., how to obtain it, format, or meaning), relying solely on the schema's generic title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Close and forget') and resource ('open device channel'), making it specific and distinguishable from siblings like frida_channel_open, frida_channel_read, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_channel_close vs other channel operations); no mention of prerequisites like ensuring the channel is open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions base64-decoding and the 'spawned' requirement, but fails to explain side effects, permissions, error conditions, or how the input is delivered (e.g., stdin or other mechanism). This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence—very concise. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less effective than a slightly longer, structured explanation. It earns its place but could be expanded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations) and the large sibling set, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on parameter values, target identification, device scoping, and return behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain what 'target', 'data_base64', or 'device_id' represent, their format, constraints, or how they relate to the tool's operation. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send'), the resource ('raw base64-decoded input bytes'), and the context ('to a spawned target'). It succinctly distinguishes this tool from siblings like frida_write_memory or frida_inject_library by specifying the input type and the requirement for the target to be spawned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description lacks exclusions or context about suitable scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what functions are called, not the effects (e.g., whether it modifies state, requires elevated permissions, or impacts the target process). The behavioral impact is implied but not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description lacks details on return values, success/failure indicators, or synchronous behavior. It is insufficient for correct invocation without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain parameter values or their relationship to the two methods mentioned. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'target' and 'mode' are not mapped to 'everything' or 'bootImage').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calls Java.deoptimizeEverything() or Java.deoptimizeBootImage(), indicating a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous about its purpose but does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_java_hook_method or frida_java_backtrace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether the tool modifies state, or what happens upon compilation (e.g., success/failure indicators). The word 'compile' implies a transformation but the impact is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It contains no unnecessary words and conveys the core action efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently. It does not explain what compilation returns, what constraints exist, or how errors are handled. For a compilation tool, more details are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'target' is mentioned in the description as location, but not defined. 'rust_code' and 'symbols' are not explained. The agent cannot infer what values are valid or how they affect behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Compile') and the resource ('GumJS RustModule') and specifies location ('inside the target'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool frida_cmodule_compile, which has a similar purpose but for C modules. The name includes 'rust' which helps, but explicit differentiation would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_cmodule_compile or frida_compiler_build. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when it is appropriate to compile a Rust module versus other compilation approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that name and kind are preserved, but does not explain side effects (e.g., state reset, permission requirements, whether the script must be currently running). This is insufficient for a reload operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. Given the parameter count, it would benefit from more detail or formatting. It is adequate but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description provides only the core action, leaving out essential context like parameter purposes, prerequisites, and return behavior. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The agent gets no guidance on what session_id, js_code, script_path, runtime, parameters, or auto_perform mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reload'), resource ('a long-running script'), and what is preserved ('its name and kind'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_script_load and frida_script_unload.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (reload a script while keeping name/kind) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as error handling, persistence, or side effects (e.g., what happens if the address is invalid).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured to include parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the prerequisite of an active Frida session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the role of 'target', 'thread_id', 'breakpoint_id', 'address', or 'unset'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Set or unset) and the resource (hardware breakpoint) with the API context (GumJS Thread API). It is distinct from sibling tools like frida_thread_hardware_watchpoint and other hooking tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., software breakpoints, watchpoints) or when to set versus unset. It lacks prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions hooking specific functions and best-effort receive, but does not state side effects (e.g., message modification, performance impact), required privileges, or whether it is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for usage, example) and could include parameter details without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sparse parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, capture destination, or how duration and output_file affect behavior. User would need external knowledge to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the three parameters (target, duration_seconds, output_file). The user receives no help understanding what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it captures XPC messages using a bundled script, specifying the hooked functions (xpc_connection_send_message and reply variants) and rendering method (xpc_copy_description). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like frida_linux_dbus_intercept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. It only states 'xpcspy-style' which may be familiar to some users but offers no explicit usage boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only indicates a mutation (stop) but fails to disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or behavior when frida-server is not running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, but it is too minimal and could be expanded without harming clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's two optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete; it lacks context on parameter usage and operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description does not explain the two parameters (adb_serial, as_root) or their effect, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Stop' and the target 'frida-server on an Android device', distinguishing it from sibling tools like start or status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when frida-server is already stopped or prerequisites like device connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'with adb' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing forwards), prerequisites (adb installed, device connected), or error states. Lacks sufficient behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (12 words) but overly brief. It lacks structure (e.g., no sections) and omits critical information. While every sentence earns its place, it does not fulfill the tool's informational needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return values or outcomes. It does not. Also missing prerequisites and restrictions. For a straightforward tool, it is incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It vaguely refers to 'local TCP port' and 'Android device TCP port' but does not map them to local_port and remote_port. The adb_serial parameter is completely ignored. Fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Forward' and the resource 'local TCP port to an Android device TCP port with adb'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list and remove by specifying the action of creating a forward.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_android_port_forward_list or frida_android_port_forward_remove. Context suggests it's for creating a forward, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a prerequisite (an attached bus) but fails to mention side effects, return values, or error conditions. The agent cannot infer what happens if the bus is not attached or if posting is destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter descriptions, behavioral context, and usage guidance. The agent would need to infer or look elsewhere for crucial details like the requirement of an attached bus.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not. The description mentions 'message' but does not clarify the roles of bus_id, message, or data_base64. This leaves the agent without necessary parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Post a message on an attached Frida bus' clearly states the action (post) and the target (message on an attached bus). It distinguishes itself from sibling bus tools like frida_bus_attach and frida_bus_get_events, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_script_post_message or when a bus must be attached. The description does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 persistence and explicit disconnection but omits details about required permissions, side effects (e.g., potential process crash), or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with such complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short and front-loaded with the purpose. Parameter explanations are provided in a list format, which is readable. However, given the number of parameters, a more structured approach (e.g., tables) could improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain many parameters, possible return states, error conditions, or prerequisites. The agent would lack critical information to use the tool correctly in many scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains only 3 of 17 parameters (target, device_id, spawn), leaving 14 parameters undocumented. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent receives no additional meaning for the majority of parameters. The description adds value for those three but fails to compensate for the overall low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool connects/attaches to a process and creates a persistent Frida session. It uses specific verbs and resources, and mentions return of session_id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the context implies it is the primary connection tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the session_id is for use with session-based tools and that the session persists until disconnected, which implies when to use this tool for establishing a session. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like frida_switch_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states what the tool does, but fails to explain what happens if no USB device is found, the meaning of the timeout parameter, or whether the function throws errors. The timeout default of 0 is not explained, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It uses precise technical language referencing the underlying API, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context. It does not mention the return type (likely a Frida device object), failure modes (e.g., DeviceNotFoundError), or the effect of the timeout parameter. For a tool that interacts with physical devices, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter (timeout) is not explained in the description. The schema provides no context for its usage, and the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema structure. The parameter remains opaque to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the first USB Frida device via a specific API call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frida_device_get_remote or frida_device_get_matching by specifying 'USB' and 'first', making its purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with other device enumeration tools like frida_list_devices or frida_device_get_remote. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether attaching to the process is required, if it's read-only, or any side effects. For a list operation, likely safe but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences plus parameter definition. Information is front-loaded and no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers basic purpose and return fields. Lacks usage context like prerequisites or examples, which could improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: '`target`: process name or pid (string).' This clarifies parameter purpose beyond schema fields, though lacks format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'list all loaded modules in a target process' and specifies return fields (name, base, size, path). Distinguishes from sibling enumeration tools by focusing on modules, though does not explicitly exclude others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like frida_enumerate_dependencies or frida_enumerate_exports. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., process must be attached).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains mode for text/binary but fails to specify whether writing overwrites or appends, required permissions, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a short summary followed by parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context such as file overwrite behavior, prerequisites (e.g., an active session), or handling of invalid inputs. It is incomplete for a tool that modifies files on a process.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning for all 4 parameters. It explains target, path, data_hex_or_text, and mode. However, it does not specify the expected format of hex bytes (e.g., with or without spaces) or validate mode options beyond the two mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'write' and the resource 'file on the target process's filesystem', distinguishing it from sibling file tools like frida_file_read (read) and frida_file_list (list). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all file-related siblings such as frida_file_download.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits; it only mentions 'Read' implying non-destructiveness, but lacks details on permissions, return format, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one phrase) but misses opportunity to provide useful context while staying short. Balanced between brevity and under-informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse; it doesn't explain return values, prerequisites, or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed; the baseline for zero params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read PackageManager.registry' clearly states a specific action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools without explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other Frida tools, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. 'List' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) with no fluff. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters lacking descriptions, the description fails to provide essential context about what tags are, what a PortalService connection entails, or the expected return format. It is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'portal_id' and 'connection_id' or their valid formats. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List tags for a PortalService connection' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (tags), clearly distinguishing it from other portal tools like frida_portal_tag (which modifies tags) and frida_portal_broadcast (sends messages).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no exclusions, and no context for prerequisites. It only states the function, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Remove a remote device', implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., device not found), or any required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (8 words, one sentence). While it efficiently conveys the core action, it could benefit from slight elaboration on the parameter or context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on successful outcomes, error handling, and prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage boundaries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required 'address' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what 'address' represents (e.g., IP:port format), leaving the agent to infer its meaning solely from the tool's name and context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('remote device from Frida's DeviceManager'). It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'frida_remote_device_add', which performs the opposite operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be added first) or any contextual cues that would help an agent decide to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Read bytes', which is non-destructive, but it omits crucial details such as whether the operation is blocking, what happens if the channel is closed, error conditions, or how the size parameter affects reading. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description leaves critical gaps. An agent may not know what the tool returns (raw bytes?), how to interpret the output, or how to handle errors, making it incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It neither explains that channel_id identifies the channel nor that size controls the number of bytes to read, providing no added value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'bytes from an open device channel'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frida_channel_open, frida_channel_write, and frida_channel_close, which have different verbs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the channel must already be open ('from an open device channel'), but it does not explicitly direct the agent to use frida_channel_open first, nor does it mention when not to use this tool or any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a destructive action ('clear') but does not mention side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or impact on other scripts when clearing session events. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. However, it lacks front-loading of key information and structure. While concise, it would benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, response behavior, or prerequisites. While the output schema is absent, a description of return values or side effects would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain any of the three parameters (script_id, session_id, kind). The phrase 'for one script or a whole session' vaguely implies two parameters, but the 'kind' parameter is entirely unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('clear'), the resource ('queued events'), and the scope ('one script or a whole session'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_script_get_events (get vs clear) and frida_session_clear_events (script vs session level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives partial guidance by mentioning scope (one script or session), but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when you want to retrieve events instead) or provide alternatives like frida_script_get_events or frida_session_clear_events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states core behavior (reset to default) but omits details like side effects on running scripts or log event clearing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, no filler. However, it may be too brief for adequate completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description lacks sufficient context about usage, defaults, and parameter roles.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description provides no explanation of parameters (script_id, session_id). Agent gains no additional meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Reset' and the resource 'Script log handling', and implies default behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like set_log_handler and get_log_handler.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description is purely reactive, lacking context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions persistence ('keep it') but omits important details such as resource consumption, statefulness, or the need to close the service.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that opens a persistent service, the description lacks essential context such as return values, prerequisites, or side effects. No output schema exacerbates the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (address, device_id, activate). The agent has no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open a device service') and its purpose ('keep it for repeated requests/events'), distinguishing it from siblings like frida_service_close and frida_service_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for repeated requests/events but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like frida_service_request. No when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only says 'hide', but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, front-loaded with the main action, and lists parameters efficiently. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Frida cloak API and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, success indicators, or how to verify the operation worked. Incomplete for a tool in a rich ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning by clarifying target as process name/pid, address as base address hex string, and size in bytes. This is helpful, though could provide more detail on value formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool hides a memory range from detection using Frida Cloak API. Distinguishes from sibling cloak tools (cloak_fd, cloak_thread) by specifying 'memory range'. However, could be more explicit about the exact outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_cloak_fd or frida_cloak_thread. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates that the tool JIT-compiles and loads code into the target process, implying modification of the process state. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, safety considerations, or error conditions, leaving ambiguity about its impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, with only 5 sentences including the parameter list. It front-loads the main action ('Compile inline C code and load...') and provides key details succinctly. Some sentences could be merged, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of compiling and loading C code into a process, the description is insufficient. It misses the toolchain parameter, does not describe return values or output, and lacks mention of platform dependencies, security implications, or error handling. With no output schema, these gaps are significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and 4 parameters. The description adds meaning for 3 parameters (target, c_code, symbols), with a clear example for symbols. However, it completely omits the toolchain parameter, which is documented only in the schema. Thus the description improves understanding but is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that it compiles inline C code and loads it into a target process via CModule. It uses specific verbs and resources, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like frida_rust_module_compile or frida_compiler_build, though the name hints at C-specific compilation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it is useful for writing high-performance hooks or callbacks in C instead of JS, providing a clear use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as when to use frida_rust_module_compile or frida_compiler_build.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get...device' but does not explain what getting a device entails (e.g., connection, exceptions, return type). This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain what 'default remote device' means, nor does it provide any context about error states or return values. With many sibling tools, more contextual details would aid correct selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but for a parameterless tool, the baseline is 4. The description does not contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the default remote device via a specific API call. However, it does not differentiate from sibling device-getting tools like frida_device_get_usb or frida_device_get_matching, which could cause confusion for an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like frida_device_get_usb and frida_device_get_matching, the description should clarify that this is for the default remote device, while others are for specific device selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states that it enumerates dependencies, but does not mention if it requires a running process, possible failures, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with many siblings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and explain parameters in a clear list format. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about return values, output format, or behavior. For a tool with no output schema and many siblings, it should provide more context to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema's type-only definitions. It specifies that 'target' is a process name or pid and 'module_name' is the module to query, which helps an agent construct correct invocations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enumerate dependencies') and the context ('module in a target process'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_exports by focusing on dependencies, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission limits the agent's ability to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions return type ('method signatures as strings') but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, requirements (e.g., live target), or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one-line purpose, then parameter definitions in a clear format. No redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple listing tool, but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and full parameter coverage (device_id). No output schema, so return format is partially explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for two required parameters: target (process name/pid) and class_name (with examples). The optional device_id parameter is not explained, missing opportunity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List declared methods') and the resource ('Java class'), with examples of class names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_java_hook_method or frida_java_choose, but does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for discovery before hooking). Only describes what it does, not context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only mentions the parameters without disclosing side effects, permissions needed, or what happens after loading symbols. The description is minimal for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief: two sentences plus two parameter descriptions. No waste, every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks output schema and does not explain what happens after loading symbols, e.g., whether symbols are immediately available or need further steps. Missing prerequisite context (e.g., target must be a running process).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: clarifies that 'target' is a process name or PID, and 'path' is the path to the debug symbol file, which the schema does not convey beyond type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (load) and resource (debug symbols from file into target). The description distinguishes this tool from many sibling tools by its specific function, but could be more explicit about the context (e.g., 'into a running Frida session').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no context about required session state (e.g., target must be attached).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states basic behavior (scans memory, returns addresses) but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or whether it modifies memory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter details are efficiently listed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits critical context like format of returned addresses, error handling, and prerequisites for using the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for address, size, and pattern beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. However, the 'target' parameter is not described, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans process memory for a hex pattern, which is specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like frida_memory_scan_sync or other memory-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., frida_memory_scan_sync). There is no context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. It does not mention whether the target must be attached or spawned, or what happens if the process does not exist. The description lists output fields but lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first sentence lists all returned metadata, second sentence explains the only parameter. No filler, easily scannable. Appropriate length for a simple info tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter adequately. However, it does not describe return format, error conditions, or usage context (e.g., requires an active session). Missing some completeness for a new user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'process name or pid (string)' to the parameter, which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). This provides useful meaning beyond the raw schema definition. However, it lacks examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, platform-specific naming). Score 3 for partially compensating for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed Process metadata') and lists specific fields (pid, arch, platform, etc.). It is specific about the resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_device_get_process or frida_enumerate_modules, which also involve process data. Score 4 for clear purpose but no sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_device_get_process for getting a process handle, frida_enumerate_threads for threads, frida_get_device_info for device-level info). It only mentions the parameter format but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., target must be a running process) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only lists parameters and defaults (target, addresses, sampler_type, duration_seconds) without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, safety, or required privileges. The agent gets no insight into whether profiling modifies the process or what happens after duration expires.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (4 lines) with a clear list structure. It avoids wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with labels. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics adequately but omits return values, side effects, and prerequisites. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's meaning and defaults (e.g., target is 'process name or pid', addresses are 'hex addresses', sampler_type with options 'wall_clock' or 'cycle_count', duration_seconds default 10). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Start profiling specific addresses in the target process' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool as a profiler but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling profiler tools like frida_profiler_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks context for prerequisites or scenarios where profiling is appropriate versus other instrumentation techniques.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only states the basic action and lists parameters, but does not disclose return values, side effects (e.g., database mutability), error handling, or permissions needed. This is insufficient for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by three parameter definitions. Front-loaded and no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an operation that executes arbitrary SQL, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, transaction behavior, async behavior, and error states. Siblings like frida_sqlite_open suggest prerequisites, but this is not addressed. Inadequate for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to each parameter (target as process name/pid, db_path as file path, sql as statement) beyond the schema's mere titles. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable, though more detail (e.g., SQL dialect) would improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes SQL against a SQLite database inside the target process, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from related SQLite tools (like dump/open) by focusing on arbitrary execution, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like frida_sqlite_dump or prerequisites (e.g., database must be open). The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses hooked functions and logged info (key handle, data sizes, operation type). Lacks mention of side effects, performance impact, required privileges, or behavior during failures. No annotations to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, with front-loaded platform and purpose. Parameter descriptions inline but clear. No wasted words, though structure could be improved by separating parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple hook tool with two parameters and no output schema. Missing details on how to stop capture, return format, or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains 'target' as process name or pid, and 'duration_seconds' as capture time. Schema coverage is 0%, so description provides necessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Cleerly states it hooks Windows CryptoAPI and BCrypt encryption/decryption functions, listing specific hooked functions and logged data. Distinguishes from siblings by platform prefix '[Windows]', but could further differentiate from frida_crypto_hook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides platform hint but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Does not mention alternatives like frida_crypto_hook, nor criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes parameters and gives query examples, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns a list of symbols, the format of results, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one line summary followed by parameter descriptions in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence is informative with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameters are well-documented, the description lacks information about return values or output format. There is no output schema, so the agent is left guessing what happens after resolution. Also missing usage guidance. Adequate for the basics but incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description effectively adds meaning. It explains target as process name/pid, query with pattern examples, and type as 'objc' or 'module'. It adds value beyond the schema by providing usage patterns, though it does not explicitly state the default for type (schema says 'objc'). Still, good compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Resolve API symbols using Frida's ApiResolver', a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings such as frida_find_export_by_name by using a generic resolver pattern, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_find_export_by_name or frida_find_functions_matching. The description lacks context about scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Hide a file descriptor' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or what cloaking entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, consisting of two lines with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description is minimal, missing return value information and behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the inline parameter descriptions in the description ('target': process name or pid, 'fd': file descriptor number) add some meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, but they largely restate types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Hide' and the resource 'file descriptor', making it specific and distinct from siblings like frida_cloak_range and frida_cloak_thread.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, or any prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Hide a thread' and explains parameters, but fails to mention side effects, reversibility, required privileges, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no unnecessary words. The purpose is stated first, followed by parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of thread hiding (a low-level operation) and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the impact on the target process, whether the operation is reversible, or what the return value indicates. For a potentially disruptive tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so for both parameters: 'target' (process name or pid) and 'thread_id' (OS thread id, with default behavior when None). The explanations are clear and match the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Hide a thread'), the resource, and the API used ('Frida Cloak API'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like frida_cloak_fd and frida_cloak_range by specifying the target is a thread.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., other cloaking tools). The description does not provide when-not-to-use or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states read-only action (returns metadata and process count) but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected), or error handling behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: three sentences covering purpose, parameter, and return value. No redundant information, front-loaded with the main verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return value adequately. However, it lacks details on error conditions, device reachability, or the format of device metadata, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the parameter's purpose, optionality, default behavior, and source (frida_list_devices). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets info about a specific Frida device or defaults to local, and lists return content (metadata, process count). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like frida_device_get_matching, which may have overlapping purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions using device_id from frida_list_devices but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., frida_device_get_remote, frida_device_get_usb). No when-not or explicit context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the 'clear' parameter but does not disclose whether reading is destructive (e.g., are messages consumed?), any side effects, or the stateful nature of the queue. This leaves key behavioral traits implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains the parameter. No wasted words. It is well front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'queued events' are, how they relate to persistent hook scripts, or how the output is structured. This lack of context reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context to the single boolean parameter 'clear' by explaining its effect: 'if True, also clear hook event queues after reading.' This goes beyond the schema, which only provides a default. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves queued events from persistent hook scripts, using a specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_clear_hook_messages or other event retrieval tools, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as frida_clear_hook_messages or other event-reading tools. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the action ('change memory protection') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the change is reversible, required permissions, potential to crash the target, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence plus a brief parameter list. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then details. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (changing memory protection, a delicate operation) and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, error handling, or process attachment prerequisites. More context would be expected for a fully reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter list adds essential meaning. It explains target as 'process name or pid', address as 'start address (hex string)', size as 'region size in bytes', and protection as 'string like 'rwx', 'r-x', etc.'. This is clear and goes beyond the schema, but lacks details like address format constraints or minimum size.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change memory protection') and the resource ('a region'). The parameter list further clarifies the scope. However, it could more explicitly distinguish from siblings like frida_memory_query_protection or frida_memory_alloc, but the verb+resource is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., frida_memory_query_protection, frida_memory_alloc). It does not mention prerequisites like being attached to a process or possible side effects. The description focuses entirely on parameters without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the action (wrapping pointer, extracting data) but does not disclose side effects, safety, permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second expands on the action, and the third explains parameters. All necessary information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable level of context. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, or any side effects, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to both parameters: 'target' is clarified as process name or pid, and 'address' as hex address. The input schema only provides type 'string', so this context is valuable and goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool inspects an ObjC object at a given address, with detailed extraction of class name, methods, ivars, and description. It is specific and distinguishes from many sibling tools that target different Frida operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar ObjC inspection tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_objc_choose, frida_dump_class). There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose side effects, blocking behavior, return values, error handling, or required permissions. It only states the action without behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one line for method, and clear parameter descriptions. Every sentence is necessary and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers what the tool does and its parameters, but lacks information about return values, blocking nature, potential errors, and prerequisites beyond the noted thread enumeration. With no output schema or annotations, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter meaningfully: target (process name/pid), thread_id (from frida_enumerate_threads), js_code (code to execute). This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it executes JavaScript on a specific thread using Process.runOnThread(), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other script execution tools like frida_eval, but the thread-specific focus provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives. It mentions dependency on frida_enumerate_threads but does not provide context for appropriate use cases or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the core action without disclosing behavior such as what happens on success/failure, socket lifetime, cleanup, or resource usage. This is insufficient for understanding side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one sentence for the action and a compact parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of opening a socket inside a process, the description omits important context such as return values, error conditions, security implications, or how the socket ties into the target process lifecycle. Without an output schema, more explanation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameters with brief explanations: target as 'process name or pid', port as 'local port to bind', type with default 'tcp'. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but lacks details like valid port ranges or target format validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Open a listening socket inside the target process.' This is a specific verb (open) and resource (listening socket), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_socket_connect, which connects to an external socket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, when not to use it, or alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes that it hooks specific operations and logs URI, result counts, and affected rows. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., performance impact, whether modifications are possible), and no annotations are provided to fill gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with 5 sentences, front-loaded with '[Android]' and a clear purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter (e.g., combining the first two sentences).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description mentions logging behavior but does not specify the return value or output format. Since no output schema exists, this is a gap. Also, it lacks information on how to stop the hook or handle errors. For a tool with moderate complexity and no annotations, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It defines 'target' as process name or pid, 'authority' as content provider authority, and 'duration_seconds' with a default value. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though format details for 'target' could be clearer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it hooks ContentResolver operations (query, insert, update, delete) for a specific authority, which distinguishes it from other Frida hook tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like frida_java_hook_method or frida_hook_native_by_offset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It describes what the tool does but does not specify contexts where it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions hooking APIs and capturing data, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the target process is modified), permissions required, or what happens if the target is not found. This lack of detail for a potentially invasive tool is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured in three short paragraphs: purpose, hooks/captured data, and parameters/use cases. It is front-loaded with the main goal and each sentence adds useful information. It is not overly verbose and is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers key aspects but misses important details: it does not describe the return format of captured data, what happens if no child processes are created, or how to handle errors. It could be more complete by specifying the output structure or referencing sibling tools for comparison.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining target as 'process name or pid' and duration_seconds as monitoring time with a default of 10. This provides meaning beyond the schema types. However, it could be more precise about target format (e.g., full path or wildcard) but is sufficient for basic use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it monitors child process creation by hooking specific APIs. It lists the hooked APIs and captured data, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like frida_spawn_gating or frida_trace, which could be used for similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases (tracing process trees, catching invocations, monitoring sandbox escapes, detecting anti-analysis forks), which helps the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the best tool from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states copying occurs, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether directories are created, files are overwritten, permissions required, or side effects on existing files. The term 'staging directory' is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the verb 'copy'. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema or annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks explanation for multiple parameters, does not describe return values or side effects, and fails to clarify the purpose of the staging directory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description references 'Gadget library, config, and optional script' which map to some parameters (gadget_library_path, config_json/config_path, script_path), but it does not explain output_dir, library_name, or the difference between config_json and config_path. It partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'copy' and the resources 'Gadget library, config, and optional script' into a 'staging directory'. Among sibling tools, this distinguishes itself as a bundling/preparation step rather than configuration generation or script templating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for preparing assets before injection, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings like frida_gadget_config or frida_gadget_script_template. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool searches the heap and returns addresses and descriptions, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, whether it works on a running process, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses three short sentences, but one sentence is dedicated to parameter details. It is concise without being overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of searching the heap for ObjC instances, the description is minimal. It does not mention platform specificity (iOS/macOS), the need for a running Frida session, or any limitations. There is no output schema to supplement the lack of detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description adds meaning: it explains that 'target' is a process name or PID, and 'class_name' is an exact ObjC class name with an example. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it could further clarify return format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the heap for live ObjC instances of a class.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from many siblings that perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Siblings include many similar tools but no comparisons are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and a prerequisite, omitting behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., read-only), permissions, or return value format. This leaves the agent uninformed about safety and expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action, followed by parameter details. It efficiently conveys key information without verbosity, though a more structured list could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the action and parameter semantics adequately for a simple scanning tool. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., what does it output?) and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_memory_scan beyond the kernel qualifier.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: 'address' should be a hex string, 'size' is byte count, and 'pattern' gives a Frida hex pattern example. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it scans kernel memory for a hex pattern, specifying the action and resource. The 'kernel' qualifier helps distinguish it from user-space memory scan tools like frida_memory_scan, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other kernel memory tools (e.g., frida_kernel_read).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires kernel access' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_memory_scan, frida_checksum_memory). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It lists parameter formats but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Incomplete for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise single sentence, but the list of types could be formatted more cleanly (e.g., using bullets). Still, it is relatively efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not explain return format or error handling. For a basic read tool, it covers essential param info but misses return behavior and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: target is 'process name or pid', address is 'hex address', type lists allowed values. This compensates well for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'typed value from process memory'. This distinguishes it from other memory-related siblings like 'frida_read_memory' and 'frida_kernel_read'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'frida_read_memory' or 'frida_write_typed'. The description does not mention context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies target state, or any side effects. The return values are listed but not the behavior on error (e.g., invalid address, disconnected target).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences and a parameter list) with no wasted words. Parameter descriptions are inline but clear. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted list), but it's effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description includes return values (mnemonic, operands, size, instruction string), which is good given no output schema. However, it lacks context about when this tool is appropriate (e.g., vs. frida_trace or other disassembly tools), and does not mention error handling or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'target' is a process name or pid, and 'address' is a hex address. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it could further specify address format (e.g., '0x' prefix optional).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it disassembles a single instruction at an address, specifying the verb (disassemble), resource (instruction at address), and scope (single instruction). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other Frida operations like hooking, memory manipulation, or process control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as when multiple instructions need disassembly or when higher-level analysis is required. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., target must be connected) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that JS code is auto-wrapped in Java.perform() and that the tool returns collected send() messages. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects, or limitations beyond the basic wrapping.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It includes a clear one-sentence summary followed by bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be more formally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and main parameters adequately. It explains auto-wrapping and return type. However, it omits the device_id parameter and does not mention error handling or environment prerequisites, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the two required parameters: 'target' is process name or pid, 'java_js_code' is JS auto-wrapped. However, the third parameter 'device_id' is not described at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but misses one parameter, making it average.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute arbitrary JS inside a Java.perform() block.' It specifies the verb (execute), resource (JS inside Java.perform), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on Java method calling. The explanation of auto-wrapping and usage of Frida APIs is specific and helpful.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_eval or frida_java_hook_method. It lacks information about prerequisites, context for invocation, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action but does not mention side effects, return values, error behavior, or whether the call is synchronous. An agent cannot assess risks like object mutation or blocking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the action, and uses a clear list for parameters. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., using a bullet list). No unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description omits return values. It also does not mention prerequisites like a connected device or session. However, the tool is part of a larger Frida ecosystem where such context might be inferred. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains target as process name/pid, address as hex, selector with underscore convention, and args_json as optional JSON array. This compensates well for the missing schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Call an ObjC method on an object at a given address.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frida_objc_choose or frida_intercept_objc_method by focusing on direct method invocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter explanations but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without sufficient direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses input formats and output fields (name, moduleName, fileName, lineNumber), indicating a read operation. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid address), dependencies (e.g., target process must be attached), or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, parameters, and output. It front-loads the core action and follows a logical structure. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and output fields. However, it lacks context on error conditions, prerequisite connections, or how the resolution actually integrates with the Frida ecosystem. An agent might need additional examples or caveats for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'target' is a process name or PID (string) and 'address' is a hex string with an example. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema. However, it could be more precise about the target format (e.g., whether PID as string is allowed) and the address prefix requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Resolve a debug symbol from an address') and specifies the underlying API (DebugSymbol.fromAddress). It lists the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like frida_find_symbol_by_name, which slightly reduces clarity for distinguishing use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical contexts (e.g., requiring an active Frida session). This omission makes it difficult for an agent to choose it correctly among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the burden. It only states the action (resume) without discussing side effects, failure conditions, or state requirements (e.g., process must be suspended). The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences followed by parameter explanations. The main action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage. However, it lacks any indication of post-resume state or error handling, and could better differentiate from the sibling frida_session_resume. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: explains target_pid as 'integer process ID' and device_id as 'optional Frida device id; defaults to local device.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Resume a suspended process by PID' and 'Standalone resume for processes spawned but not yet resumed.' The verb and resource are specific. It distinguishes from session-level resume by emphasizing standalone, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like frida_session_resume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context: 'for processes spawned but not yet resumed.' This hints at appropriate use cases but does not mention when not to use or list alternatives. The guidance is minimal but sufficient for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Terminate' which implies destructive action, but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or effect on session. More behavioral context needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose. It could benefit from slightly more detail on parameters without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks error handling, return values, and behavior on repeated calls. For a tool with a required parameter, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameters 'membership_id' or 'session_id', nor how to obtain them. Given the lack of schema documentation, description should compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Terminate' and the resource 'portal membership', and explicitly references the companion tool 'frida_session_join_portal', which distinguishes it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after joining a portal by referencing the join tool. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling set makes the purpose clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and parameters, but does not disclose behavior such as whether the call is blocking, what happens on error, or what the return value is (e.g., success indicator).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two introductory sentences followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence is valuable with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not specify the return value or error behavior, which are critical for an agent to handle the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'target', 'host', 'port', and 'type' with types and default. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Open a TCP/UDP connection from within the target process,' which is a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('TCP/UDP connection'), and distinguishes from siblings like frida_socket_listen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_socket_listen, nor does it mention when not to use it. The only implied context is that it is for outgoing connections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains what hooks are used and that it returns unique strings, but fails to mention potential side effects like performance impact, process stability, or whether it modifies the target process. Safety considerations are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise opening, bullet points for hooked methods, and parameter explanations. No verbose or redundant sentences. However, it could be slightly more streamlined in listing the hooks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description only states 'Returns unique strings observed' without specifying the format (e.g., JSON array). It also doesn't cover how to stop early or if multiple calls can be made concurrently. The parameter defaults are clear, but additional context on output and lifecycle would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear explanations for each parameter: 'target' (process name/pid), 'min_length' (default 4), and 'duration_seconds' (default 10). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'sniffs strings as they are created at runtime in a target process', lists specific hooked functions (ObjC and native), and explains its utility for finding decrypted config, URLs, tokens, keys. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 implies it's for capturing runtime strings, but doesn't mention when not to use it or what other tools might be better suited (e.g., for static analysis or other hooks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., whether clearing is permanent, if it affects other sessions, or if it requires specific permissions).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. There is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action with no parameters, the description is adequate but lacks details on return value or confirmation. It does not explain what happens after clearing, but given the low complexity, it meets a minimum viable standard.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With no parameters, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the empty schema, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description is consistent and does not mislead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: clearing the hook message buffer. It uses a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('hook message buffer'), and it differentiates from the sibling tool 'frida_get_hook_messages' which retrieves messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites (e.g., must have an active session), or alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lacks information about side effects, permissions, return behavior, or any constraints beyond parameter descriptions. The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—two lines for purpose and a bullet-like list for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameters but omits critical context: no mention of what the return value contains (e.g., list of import names), error conditions, or any behavioral notes. For a tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning for all four parameters: target (process name or pid), module_name (with example), filter (optional case-insensitive substring), and limit (default 1000). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Enumerate imports of a module in a target process.' This is a specific verb and resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_exports or frida_enumerate_modules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention scenarios where enumerating imports is appropriate or contrast it with other enumeration functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. For a high-risk kernel write operation, it fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., system crash, write permissions, error handling). The warnings are minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences plus parameter lines) with no wasted words. However, parameter information could be structured (e.g., bullet points) for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity and danger of kernel writes, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or safety warnings, leaving an agent underinformed for such a sensitive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 0%, the description provides meaningful examples and formats for both parameters ('address' as hex, 'hex_bytes' as hex-encoded), adding value beyond the schema's simple type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Write raw bytes') and the target ('kernel memory'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling kernel tools like frida_kernel_read (read) and frida_kernel_alloc (allocate).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires kernel access', which implies a prerequisite but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like frida_write_memory (userspace). No when-not-to-use or alternative names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions allocation via Memory.alloc and returns the address, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., permission needs, whether memory is writable/executable, or if it must be freed). This leaves significant gaps for a memory operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three clear sentences. It uses backtick formatting for parameters and efficiently communicates the core action, constraints, and return value without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling list and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple allocation tool but lacks integration context, such as how the allocated memory can be used with other tools (e.g., frida_memory_write) or that it applies to user-space. Complete for the tool itself, but not fully contextual within the ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining 'target' as process name or pid and 'size' as bytes capped at 10MB. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though the exact format for target (e.g., string vs integer for pid) is implied but not explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it allocates memory inside a target process via Memory.alloc, with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from kernel allocation by mentioning 'target process', distinguishing it from siblings like frida_kernel_alloc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., frida_memory_alloc_string). It only mentions a size cap (10MB) as a constraint, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions it uses ObjC.chooseSync (synchronous), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, safety, or if it requires a session. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence followed by parameter definitions. No wasted words, though the parameter list could be formatted more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does and its parameters, but lacks information about the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the response structure. Adequate for a simple search tool but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are explained in the description: target (process name or pid), class_name (exact ObjC class name), limit (max instances, default 100). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Find') and resource ('live ObjC instances of a class') and distinguishes from siblings like frida_java_choose by specifying ObjC. The verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_objc_call_method or frida_java_choose). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the pattern matching (glob-ish with regex conversion) which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose output format, potential errors (e.g., if target is invalid), or side effects. The mutation is implied (enumeration is read-only), but lacks explicit safety cues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence of 20 words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and adds the pattern-matching detail without redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and one parameter's semantics. Missing: expected return type (list of strings?), error states, and precise target specification. Adequate for a straightforward enumeration tool but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for name_pattern (glob-ish regex conversion) beyond the schema's plain 'string' type. But target is only vaguely implied to be a process identifier; no details on accepted formats (name/PID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enumerate'), the resource ('ObjC class names'), the scope ('in a target process'), and the filtering mechanism ('matching name_pattern'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_objc_choose (which selects instances) or frida_objc_list_protocols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., frida_java_list_classes for Java classes, or frida_objc_choose for working with class instances). It does not specify prerequisites like attaching to a process or having a session, nor does it indicate what to do after enumerating class names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description carries full burden. It states that it creates a block and returns a handle address, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., memory allocation in target process), cleanup requirements, permissions, or potential errors. Limited to basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise: one sentence for purpose, then bullet-like parameter lines, and a return statement. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential create action, parameter meanings, and return value. However, it lacks behavioral details, usage context, error handling, and lifecycle information about the created block. Adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. Each parameter is explained with type and examples: target (string), return_type (with examples like 'void'), arg_types (list of strings), js_body (function body). Adds meaningful context beyond schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create an ObjC block at runtime via new ObjC.Block,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_objc_call_method or frida_objc_choose, which perform different operations. Parameter details further reinforce the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions for use. Sibling tools are numerous, but no comparison or context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'runtime registration' implying mutation, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether re-registering a class overwrites, or if registration is persistent per session) or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a two-line header and a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence is useful and there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively complex operation like registering a new ObjC class at runtime, the description is minimal. It lacks details on return values, success/error scenarios, and the lifecycle of the registered class. Given the absence of an output schema and no annotations, more context would be beneficial for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: target as 'process name or pid', name as 'class name', super_class as 'name of the superclass', and methods_js as 'JS object literal for methods'. It provides clarity beyond the bare schema property names, though it could elaborate on the structure of methods_js.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Register a new ObjC class at runtime via ObjC.registerClass.' It specifies the verb (register) and resource (ObjC class), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_objc_call_method or frida_objc_choose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. For example, it does not mention that a Frida session must be active or that the process must be suspended for class registration to take effect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the two-step approach: trying CLR.enumerateAssemblies() first, then falling back to module enumeration with .NET metadata detection. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, no fluff. It efficiently communicates platform, action, and fallback behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity, the description lacks details on return format or how to specify the target. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should provide more context about output and parameter format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no description for the 'target' parameter. The description does not explain what 'target' refers to (e.g., process ID, name, etc.), so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool enumerates .NET assemblies in a target process, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'Windows' and focusing on .NET assemblies, unlike other enumeration tools. The fallback behavior adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing .NET assemblies but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It mentions the fallback strategy but does not clarify prerequisites or contexts like needing an attached process.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions that the written region is read back for verification, adding behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with a single sentence plus parameter list. It is front-loaded and structured. A bit more brevity could be achieved, but it is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so return values are not explained. The description hints at verification but doesn't specify what is returned (e.g., success flag, written bytes). Also missing prerequisites (e.g., attached process). Given the sensitivity of memory writing, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: 'target' is process name or pid, 'address' is hex address with example, 'hex_bytes' is hex-encoded bytes with examples. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Write raw bytes to process memory') and specifies the resource. It lists parameters with formats, distinguishing it from siblings like frida_write_typed and frida_read_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., frida_write_typed). No prerequisites or context provided. A simple mention of alternatives would improve usage clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential side effects (e.g., process crash), required permissions, or whether the write is atomic. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear action statement followed by parameter definitions in a readable format. However, the parameter list could be slightly more streamlined without the code block, but it remains effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks prerequisites (e.g., active session, attached process) and does not mention any return value or error conditions. For a memory write tool, this is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds full meaning to all four parameters beyond the schema's basic type definitions. It explains 'target' as process name/pid, 'address' as hex address, and lists the valid types with their string representations. Schema coverage is 0%, so this is essential.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Write a typed value to process memory,' specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'frida_write_memory' by emphasizing the typed nature of the value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'frida_write_memory' or when not to use it. The description lacks context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool captures arguments and return values and hooks into libart.so. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. However, does not mention if hooks persist, require cleanup, or impact performance. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief (4 lines) and front-loaded with purpose. Listing examples of hooked functions is helpful. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose and parameters, but lacks output format details (since no output schema) and behavioral context like permissions or runtime requirements. Adequate for a simple hook tool but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema: clarifies target as process name or pid, function_name with examples (RegisterNatives, FindClass), and duration_seconds default 10. Schema coverage 0%, so description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool hooks JNI functions in libart.so, listing specific functions like RegisterNatives and FindClass. Uses specific verb 'hook' and resource 'JNI functions', which distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_android_content_provider_hook or frida_android_webview_hook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as frida_java_hook_method or frida_hook_native_function. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the hooks applied per platform and states the return type (list of bypasses). However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Platform-specific details are structured as a bullet-like list. No redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains the return format but lacks edge cases, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., attached Frida session), or platform-specific limitations. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only specifies type 'string' for target, with no description. The description adds that 'target' is a process name or pid, providing essential context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it bypasses root/jailbreak detection, with specific platform details (iOS and Android hooks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_anti_debug_bypass and frida_win_amsi_bypass by focusing on root/jailbreak detection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, whether the target process must be running or attached, or when to choose this over other bypass tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. While it describes a read-like operation ('collect'), it does not confirm read-only status, potential side effects, or required permissions. The description is not misleading but leaves ambiguity about what exactly is collected and whether the operation is safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 11-word sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters, the description lacks crucial context for a diagnostic tool. It does not specify what diagnostic information is returned (no output schema), how to interpret results, or typical usage patterns (e.g., run as a first step). This leaves the agent underinformed about the tool's value and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist. Given the zero-parameter baseline of 4, the description meets expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Collect local host diagnostics relevant to Frida MCP operation.' It specifies a specific verb ('collect'), a specific resource ('local host diagnostics'), and context ('relevant to Frida MCP operation'). This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on device interaction or process manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when or when not to use this tool. With over 100 sibling tools, explicit context on prerequisites or alternatives (e.g., 'Run this before other operations') would be beneficial. The current description implies a diagnostic role but lacks usage directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes behavioral traits: creates a one-shot script, collects messages, unloads without disturbing session, and mentions using send() to return data. However, it lacks details on error handling, behavior of optional parameters, and potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a list for parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter list could be better formatted, but overall no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only the required parameters and basic behavior, missing important details like optional parameters, return format, and error scenarios. Adequate for simple use but not for comprehensive understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains session_id and js_code but does not describe the other four parameters (runtime, parameters, auto_perform, exit_on_error). This leaves a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute arbitrary JS in an existing persistent Frida session (REPL).' It distinguishes itself from sibling inject_script by explaining the lifecycle difference. The verb 'execute' and resource 'JS in persistent session' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: reuses persistent session to preserve hooks/state, and contrasts with inject_script. It implies when to use (when you want to eval without disturbing session) but does not explicitly state when not to use or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that invocations are logged, arguments up to 6 beyond self/sel are captured, and duration_seconds controls hook lifetime. This is fairly transparent though it omits potential side effects or cleanup details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single-line summary followed by a compact explanation of key parameters. Every sentence adds value, no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of hooking and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks mention of return values (logs), prerequisites (running Frida session), or how to stop the hook early.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains class_name and method_name with examples, and mentions duration_seconds. However, the 'target' parameter is not explained, and the note about capturing arguments is about behavior, not a parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it hooks a specific ObjC method and logs invocations. The verb 'Hook' and resource 'ObjC method via Interceptor' are specific. It distinguishes from other hook tools in the sibling list like frida_hook_native_by_offset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides examples for class_name and method_name, and mentions duration_seconds. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like frida_objc_call_method or frida_hook_native_function, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'captures' but does not clarify whether the hook is read-only (monitoring) or modifies behavior (blocking), nor how captured data is retrieved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured with a platform tag, bullet points for parameters, and no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details on output/return value (how captured URLs are accessed) and prerequisites (e.g., attaching to a process). Given no output schema or annotations, more context is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: target is described as 'process name or pid', and duration_seconds as 'how long to capture'. This adds value beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool hooks URL scheme and Universal Link handling on iOS/macOS, listing specific APIs. It is unique among siblings, with no overlapping tool for this purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for intercepting URL schemes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions hooking specific functions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies process memory, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The description is insufficient for a hooking tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for hooks, one for parameters. No redundant information, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., intercepted messages format). For a hooking tool with many siblings, missing output behavior and lack of behavioral disclaimers leave the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds clear meaning: 'target' is a process name or pid, and 'duration_seconds' is a capture duration with default 10. This compensates for the schema's lack of text, though format details (e.g., pid vs name) are left inferred.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Intercept D-Bus method calls and messages' and lists specific hooked functions. It distinguishes this tool from many siblings focused on Android, iOS, or other platforms by prefixing '[Linux]' and detailing the D-Bus interception mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for intercepting D-Bus communication but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings like frida_linux_syscall_hook, no differentiation is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, performance impact, or whether the tool is read-only. It mentions 'smart argument extraction' without elaboration, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the purpose, and lists parameters in a clear, structured manner. Every sentence adds value without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information on how to retrieve logged arguments, whether the tool blocks or returns immediately, and how it integrates with sibling tools for getting hook messages (e.g., frida_get_hook_messages).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema: target is process name/pid, syscall_names are function names with examples, duration_seconds has a default of 10. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool hooks libc syscall wrappers and logs arguments, specifying it's for Linux. It provides examples of syscalls (open, read, write, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting Linux syscall interception.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives basic guidance on using target, syscall_names, and duration_seconds, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like frida_hook_native_function or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required session state, or other behaviors. Lacking depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first for action, second for return fields. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: action and return fields. It mentions 'current session' but could clarify session prerequisite. Sufficient for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%). Description does not need to add parameter info, but it adds value by describing return fields. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List all installed persistent hooks' with specific verb+resource. It also lists the return fields (script ids, names, loaded state, event counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_install_hook or frida_uninstall_hooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions provided. The description only states what it does without usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using MemoryAccessMonitor to capture access events, but fails to explain side effects, permissions required, whether it blocks execution, or how events are returned. The description lacks sufficient detail about what happens during monitoring.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: 5 lines with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then explains parameters in bullet format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics adequately, but lacks any mention of the return value or output format. Given no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns (e.g., events list, status). This gap reduces completeness for a monitoring tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite zero schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it clarifies target as a process name or pid, specifies ranges as a list of objects with 'base' and 'size' keys, and gives a default for duration_seconds. This fully compensates for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Monitor), resource (memory accesses), and scope (read/write/execute on specified ranges). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from other memory-related sibling tools like reading or writing memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory scanning or direct memory read/write. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states dump is a read operation but doesn't explicitly confirm it doesn't modify the database or disclose permissions needed. Lacks safety details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter list, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, yet description fails to mention return format, size, or structure of the dump. For a dump tool, output details are important for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds basic meaning: 'target: process name or pid' and 'db_path: path to the .db file'. This matches parameters but no extra context like path format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it performs 'Full schema + data dump of a SQLite database', which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like frida_sqlite_exec (execute SQL) and frida_sqlite_open (open only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage from name and description, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_sqlite_exec or frida_sqlite_open, nor prerequisites (e.g., process must be attached).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the methods hooked and the type of data captured, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or whether the hooking is destructive or reversible. It adds some context but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a list of hooked methods and captures, and clear parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what is captured but does not specify the output format or structure, and there is no output schema. Given no annotations, more detail on what the agent receives (e.g., report type, event stream) would improve completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining 'target' as process name or pid, and 'duration_seconds' as capture duration with a default. This adds meaning beyond the schema types and default values. Could be improved with examples or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool hooks specific WebView methods (addJavascriptInterface, evaluateJavascript, loadUrl) to capture JS bridge interactions, with explicit details on what is captured. It is distinct from sibling tools like frida_android_jni_hook by focusing on WebView, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 among the numerous sibling tools. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection, leaving the agent without criteria to differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that it shells out to frida-compile, adding behavioral insight. However, it does not cover potential side effects, system dependencies, error behavior, or permissions required. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences plus parameter descriptions. First sentence states purpose, second adds implementation detail, third describes parameters. No filler, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and default behavior. Could mention prerequisites or error states, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: script_path as path to source .js file, and output_path as optional with a default value. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it compiles a Frida JS script to bytecode for faster injection. Verb and resource are specific, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_compiler_build or frida_compiler_watch, which may have similar compilation functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions the benefit (faster loading) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. No explicit context for choosing over sibling compilation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (stopping tracking) but lacks details on side effects, resource cleanup, or permissions required. The behavior is straightforward, so minimal transparency is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple action and single parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it would benefit from mentioning that the watch_id likely comes from frida_compiler_watch and indicating what happens on success/failure, especially since no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates the 'watch_id' parameter identifies the record to stop, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it could explicitly link the ID to the one returned by frida_compiler_watch for clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Stop tracking a Compiler.watch() record.' It uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('Compiler.watch() record'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_compiler_watch (start) and frida_compiler_watch_get_events (query).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (stopping an existing watch record) but does not explicitly state when to use it, prerequisites (e.g., an active watch), or alternatives. It provides no guidance on exclusion or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses detaching from process and unloading persistent hooks, but omits error conditions, side effects on other sessions, or whether the operation is reversible. No annotations, so description carries full burden, but is only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a parameter note, no extraneous words. Front-loaded with purpose, efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. Covers core action and effect, though lacks error handling or return value info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning: explains session_id is optional, defaults to active session. Adds value beyond schema structure, though could specify format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it disconnects from a Frida session, detaches from process, and unloads hooks. Verb and resource are specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like frida_connect or frida_switch_session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when disconnecting from a session, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., frida_is_connected, frida_switch_session). Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return content (methods, superclass, protocols, ivars) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or constraints like requiring an attached Frida session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one lead sentence, a brief parameter list, and a clear outcome. No redundancy, front-loaded with action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers what the tool does and returns, but lacks context about when it is appropriate (e.g., after attaching to a process) and does not mention output format or error handling. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by defining 'target' as process name or pid and 'class_name' as exact ObjC class name. It also states what is returned. However, format details or validation rules are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Dump', the resource 'full ObjC class structure', and specifies the scope: methods, protocols, ivars. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_objc_classes (which lists classes) and frida_intercept_objc_method (hooks methods).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as frida_objc_inspect_object or frida_objc_call_method. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., attached session) and when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that Frida returns ranges with protection superset of filter value. However, it does not disclose side effects (likely none), error behaviour, or prerequisites (e.g., attached process). Adds some context but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences and parameter details. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description explains parameters but does not describe return format (e.g., list of range objects) or prerequisites (e.g., process must be attached). Missing some necessary context for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It describes target as 'process name or pid' and filter as 'protection string filter (default 'rw-')' with explanation of superset behavior, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Enumerate' and resource 'malloc heap ranges' with a filter by memory protection. This distinguishes it from siblings like frida_enumerate_ranges which enumerates all ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like frida_enumerate_ranges or frida_kernel_enumerate_ranges. The description implies use for malloc analysis but doesn't provide when/why.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether a running process is required, how the tool interacts with Frida scripting, performance implications, or error handling (e.g., no matches). Returns are only vaguely described as 'matching addresses with symbolicated names.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter explanations, then return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of symbol resolution and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks detail on the format of returned data (e.g., array of objects?), prerequisites like being attached to a process, and what happens if no symbols match. The return description is too vague.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful detail to both parameters: for 'target' it clarifies it can be process name or pid, and for 'glob' it provides examples. This largely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding functions matching a glob pattern via DebugSymbol.findFunctionsMatching. It specifies the verb (find), resource (functions), and mechanism (glob pattern). Examples are given, and it distinguishes from siblings like frida_find_functions_named which likely uses exact names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through examples of glob patterns, but no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as frida_find_functions_named or frida_find_symbol_by_name. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that it hooks every overload and collects invocations with a timestamp, but does not mention side effects, permissions, prerequisites like an active Frida session, or error handling. The duration parameter is noted but not its behavior beyond default.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear bullet-like format for parameters and output example. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description covers basic usage but lacks completeness. It does not address error scenarios, performance impact, or integration with other tools. The missing device_id parameter and lack of prerequisites leave gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains target, class_name, method_name, and duration_seconds, but omits device_id. The output format is described. While it adds value for most parameters, the missing parameter and lack of detail on format reduce its effectiveness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool hooks all overloads of a Java method and collects invocations. It uses a specific verb (hook) and resource (Java method) and distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_java_call or frida_java_list_methods by specifying the action of hooking and collecting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for collecting method invocations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other Java hooking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It only states that it allocates a string and returns an address, without mentioning memory ownership, cleanup requirements, error cases, or permission needs. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single purpose line, a bullet-like list for parameters, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple allocation tool, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it omits important behavioral context like whether the allocated string must be freed manually or what happens on failure. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: target (process name/pid), string (value), encoding (default utf8, with utf16 and ansi options). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Allocate a string inside a target process' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frida_memory_alloc by focusing on string allocation, and mentions the return value (address).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other memory allocation tools (e.g., frida_memory_alloc for raw bytes) or when not to use it. There are no preconditions or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Query' which implies a non-modifying operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or side-effect-free. It also does not mention what happens on invalid addresses or permissions needed. This is adequate but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. It opens with the core purpose, then explains parameters in a clear list, and closes with the return value. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic what, how, and return. However, it lacks error handling or prerequisites (e.g., must have a session attached). For a tool in a large toolbox, this is marginal completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines 'target' as 'process name or pid (string)' and 'address' as 'hex address to query', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only fields. However, it could clarify the exact format for addresses (e.g., '0x' prefix).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Query memory protection at a specific address,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. Among siblings like frida_memory_protect (modifies) and frida_memory_scan (scans memory), this tool's purpose is clearly distinguished as a read-only query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 or any context or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation or that it should be used after enumerating ranges. This is a gap given the many memory-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions constructing and invoking a NativeFunction but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the call is synchronous, how errors are handled, side effects, or that the process must be attached. Gaps exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear summary sentence, followed by a concise bullet list of parameters. Each bullet is one line with no wasted words. Efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, and process attachment requirements. The tool is moderately complex but the description is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains each parameter (e.g., address is a hex string, return_type example values). It provides examples and clarifies required types. However, it does not specify valid enum values for return_type or constraints on arg_types/args correspondence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calls a native function by address, specifying it constructs a NativeFunction with given signature and invokes it. This distinguishes it from siblings like frida_hook_native_function (hook) or frida_system_function_call (system calls).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use raw address vs symbol name). No usage context or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses long-running nature, persistence until unload/disconnect, and communication methods. However, it omits details on error handling or effects of parameters like exit_on_error.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, with second and third sentences adding essential lifecycle and API details. Every sentence is valuable with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how parameters like session_id, event_limit, or runtime affect behavior, nor indicate success/failure feedback.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters but fails to mention any. All 11 parameters, including required js_code, are undocumented in the description, leaving agents without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads a long-running Frida script into a persistent session, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'long-running' and 'persistent session', which sets it apart from other script loading tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on script persistence and communication via send/recv/rpc.exports, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like frida_script_load_file or frida_script_load_bytes, nor state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions using Frida's SqliteDatabase API and sandbox view but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it close the database? what if already open?), state changes, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is ultra-concise (3 lines), front-loads the main action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; complexity moderate. Description covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks complete behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, lifecycle, error handling). Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains 'target' as process name or pid and 'db_path' as path to .db file. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though still minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens a SQLite database and lists tables, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_sqlite_exec by focusing on listing tables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use for opening and listing tables but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like frida_sqlite_dump or frida_sqlite_exec. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the logging behavior (what is captured) and the duration parameter, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, or whether the tool is non-destructive. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose, specific logged items, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, what it logs, parameters, and platform. It is fairly complete for an intercept-and-log tool, though it could mention how output is delivered or if there are any prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters: target as 'process name or pid' and duration_seconds as 'how long to capture (default 10)'. This adds value beyond the bare schema which lacks descriptions for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it intercepts Intent dispatching (startActivity, sendBroadcast, startService) on Android, and lists specific logged details (action, extras, component, categories, data URI). This distinguishes it from other frida_android_* tools that deal with different aspects like content providers or webviews.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It only describes functionality without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the 64KB cap and hex-encoded return, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, it specifies hex-encoded return. However, it omits edge cases like offset out of bounds or file not found. For a simple read tool, it covers essential usage adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: target (process/pid), path, offset (byte offset), and length (capped at 64KB), adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (read), resource (file), and the specific action (seek and read at offset). This distinguishes it from siblings like frida_file_read which reads entire files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like frida_file_read. The description implies usage for partial reads but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the return value 'address and type' and lists parameters. However, it does not disclose behavior on failure (e.g., symbol not found), side effects, or performance impact. For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence explaining the action followed by a labeled list of parameters. No extraneous words. It is well-structured for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects or output schema), the description covers the essential: what it does, parameters, and return type. It lacks error handling or edge-case information, but for a straightforward symbol lookup, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: target, module_name, symbol_name. These add meaning beyond the bare schema, though they are concise. The parameter list is clear and corresponds to required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'find', the resource 'symbol by name within a module', and specifies 'including non-exported symbols', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_find_export_by_name. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with tools like frida_enumerate_symbols or frida_find_export_by_name. This omission leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial match support, case-insensitivity, and return fields (name, base address, size, path). However, it omits important behaviors: what happens if no match (returns null or error?), that only the first match is returned, and any needed permissions or session context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, directly stating the purpose and parameter details. No redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. However, it lacks context about needing an active target (e.g., via frida_connect) and error handling, which could be inferred but not explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: clarifies that 'target' can be a process name or pid, and 'module_name' supports partial match (case-insensitive). This significantly aids agent understanding beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'base address of a module', with additional detail on partial match support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_modules or frida_dump_module by focusing on base address retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active Frida session), nor does it specify when not to use it (e.g., if you need all modules, use frida_enumerate_modules).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it dumps memory as a formatted hex display and notes parameter constraints (length default/max). However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid address), or output behavior beyond 'formatted hex dump'. With no annotations, this is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences plus parameter list) with no extraneous text. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, then details parameters with type/format hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameters are covered, the description lacks specifics about the output format (e.g., per-line structure, ASCII representation) and error behavior. For a simple hex dump tool, this is acceptable but not thorough. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: target (process name/pid), address (hex string), and length (default/max). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a 'formatted hex dump of memory at an address', specifying the action, resource, and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_read_memory (raw bytes) and frida_memory_scan (search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_read_memory, frida_memory_scan). The description only explains what it does, not why an agent would choose it over other memory-handling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the use of Interceptor.attach, default JS behavior, and duration, but does not cover side effects, cleanup, error handling, or what happens when the hook fires.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet-like parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose, it earns its length by covering all parameters comprehensively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lacks information about return values (e.g., hook ID or messages). It also does not mention prerequisites like an active Frida session or device connection, which are important for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining all five parameters: target, address, on_enter_js, on_leave_js, and duration_seconds. It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying types, defaults, and the scope of JS bodies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Hook a native function by address using Interceptor.attach.' It specifies the verb (hook), resource (native function by address), and mechanism. This distinguishes it from similar tools like frida_hook_native_by_offset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it mentions hooking by address, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, scenarios, or trade-offs with other hooking tools, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses hooking behavior and allows arbitrary HTTP/self-signed certs, but does not mention reversibility, safety, or side effects like persistent traffic changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then technical details, then parameter. No fluff, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Functional but minimal. No output schema, no mention of return values or side effects. Given tool complexity (system security modification), more context on behavior scope and duration would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has only 'target' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds clear meaning: 'process name or pid (string).' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it disables App Transport Security for a target process on iOS/macOS, with specific technical actions (patches NSURLSessionConfiguration, hooks SecTrustEvaluate). It distinguishes from siblings like frida_ios_keychain_dump by focusing on network security bypass.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or caveats mentioned. The description assumes user knowledge of ATS bypass context without elaboration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the mechanism (Java.openClassFile().load()) and the outcome (classes available via Java.use()). However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., is it reversible?), error conditions, or whether it can be invoked multiple times.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four sentences, with the purpose stated first, followed by implementation detail, effect, and parameter clarification. Each sentence adds value, though the third sentence could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple load action with three parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and two parameters. It lacks information on return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., an active Frida session). Some important context is missing, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides meaningful explanations for two of three parameters: 'target' is clarified as process name or PID, and 'dex_path' as a filesystem path. The third parameter, 'device_id', is not mentioned, leaving a gap. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a significant but incomplete contribution.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('load') and resource ('DEX file'), and specifies the context ('into an Android process at runtime'). It differentiates from sibling tools like frida_java_hook_method by focusing on loading a DEX file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by describing the underlying API call and its effect, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to load a DEX vs hooking methods directly). No guidance on prerequisites or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the prerequisite and output fields, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or whether it is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, efficient, and front-loaded with the action and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and return information, though it could mention session requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output fields, which goes beyond the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that it enumerates kernel modules (kexts) and lists the returned fields (name, base address, size, path), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_kernel_enumerate_module_ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires kernel access,' which is a prerequisite, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read (non-destructive) and returns hex-encoded bytes, but fails to disclose potential risks like system instability if an invalid address is provided, or permission requirements beyond 'kernel access'. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus two parameter hints. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides critical information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, required parameters, and return format. It does not address error scenarios or safety precautions, but for a simple read operation with two params, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage of parameters. The description adds essential semantics: address format ('hex address, e.g., 0x...') and length unit ('bytes to read'). This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though valid ranges or constraints could improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read kernel memory at an address' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_kernel_write. It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires kernel access'), enhancing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via the prerequisite ('Requires kernel access') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_read_memory for user-space or other kernel tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the two behaviors (overwrite with replacement_addr or install logging trampoline) but does not mention reversibility, persistence, permission requirements, or side effects. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is readable but could be structured with bullets for easier scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing information on return value, error conditions, preconditions (e.g., must the process be attached?), and whether it requires an active session. Given no output schema, the description should cover these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides clear definitions and examples for all four parameters, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. Each parameter is explained with type hints and usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it overwrites a GOT/PLT entry for a function in a Linux target module. It distinguishes itself from other Frida hooks by specifying the mechanism and platform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for intercepting function calls via GOT patching on Linux, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_hook_native_function or frida_interceptor_replace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool lists protocols and returns sorted names, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, performance implications, or behavior on invalid input (e.g., non-existent process).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: one for purpose, one for parameter and return. No wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic behavior, input, and output format. However, it omits error cases (e.g., target not found) and any dependencies (e.g., process must be running). For a simple listing tool, this is mostly adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that 'target' accepts a process name or PID (string). This is sufficient for a single required parameter, though format details (e.g., case sensitivity) could be added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all registered ObjC protocols') and the resource ('in a target process'). It is distinct from sibling tools like frida_objc_call_method or frida_objc_choose, which cover different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, error handling, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., frida_objc_classes) might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only indicates retrieval, but does not disclose what the report contains, format, side effects, or that it is a read-only operation. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two-sentence description, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema. Description does not mention the return format or content type. Insufficient for an agent to know what to expect from the report.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to the 'target' parameter: 'process name or pid'. This compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Retrieve the profiler report from a previous profiler_start', using a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tool frida_profiler_start.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states prerequisite: 'Must have an active profiler from a prior frida_profiler_start call'. No exclusions or alternatives needed for a retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, performance impact, or error handling. It only mentions functionality, leaving safety and reliability unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but could be more structured (e.g., using numbered list for parameters). It avoids unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic functionality and parameters but lacks behavioral details and return information, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter and providing structure for options_json, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it configures and starts Stalker with advanced options on a specific thread, and distinguishes itself from stalker_coverage by mentioning finer control and custom event types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (for finer control than stalker_coverage) and explains parameters, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond stalker_coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses that it attaches to the main thread and returns coverage data. It lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies Stalker state. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently covers key aspects without wasted words, ending with return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description specifies return shape ({blocks, count}). It explains main parameters but misses 'output_file'. For a coverage tool, it provides enough context to use, though prerequisites (e.g., attached session) are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'duration_seconds' and 'module_filter' by explaining their roles. However, 'output_file' and 'target' are not explicitly described beyond being required. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool collects basic-block coverage using Frida Stalker. It specifies attachment to main thread, records unique blocks during a duration, and allows module filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling stalker tools like frida_stalker_add_call_probe, frida_stalker_configure, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for coverage collection but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_trace, other profilers). No when-not-to-use criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the attach vs spawn behavior and the collection process, including resuming after spawn. However, it lacks details on error handling or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by return data and parameter explanations. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is fairly complete for a snapshot tool, listing return items and explaining 3/5 params. However, missing two parameters and lacking error/edge-case details reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target', 'device_id', and 'spawn' with some behavioral context, but ignores 'module_limit' and 'thread_limit', which are two out of five parameters. Incomplete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'collect a snapshot', the resource 'target', and the purpose 'before deeper analysis'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a general preliminary step, not a specific hook or analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a preliminary step ('before deeper analysis') and mentions 'recommended next tools', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No clear exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the mechanism (hooks CoCreateInstance, patches vtable) and that it logs invocations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., process memory changes, crashes) or cleanup requirements. With no annotations, the burden is on the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. A slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet parameters) could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers purpose and parameters, it lacks output format, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., Frida running), and behavioral details (e.g., blocking behavior). Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains `target` as process name/pid, `clsid_or_progid` as CLSID or '*' for all, `method_index` with known vtable indices, and `duration_seconds` default. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is highly valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: intercept a COM vtable method call on Windows. It specifies the verb ('intercept', 'hooks', 'patches') and the resource ('COM vtable'), making it distinct from sibling tools like `frida_win_api_monitor`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Windows COM interception but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other Windows hook tools). No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it hooks and logs registry operations but does not mention side effects, permissions required, or whether it modifies anything. With no annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, impact on process) would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a list of hooked APIs and parameter details. It could be slightly more structured but is largely efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality but lacks details on output format, how to interpret results, or how to stop monitoring. With no output schema, completeness is moderately adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that 'target' can be a process name or PID, and 'duration_seconds' is the monitoring duration with a default of 10. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it monitors Windows Registry operations in a target process, listing specific API functions hooked (RegOpenKeyExW, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frida_win_api_monitor, which is a general API monitor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for monitoring registry operations on Windows processes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool reads SharedPreferences, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return format. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, starts with a clear summary, and efficiently explains functionality and parameters. Could be slightly more structured but is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and parameter use. Lacks output description but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% coverage, so description adds meaningful info: target is process name or pid, pref_name is optional and without .xml extension. This compensates for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it dumps SharedPreferences key-value pairs for Android apps via Context.getSharedPreferences(). It distinguishes between specific file dump and discovery mode, and the sibling list contains different tools, so it's unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for using the optional pref_name parameter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_sqlite_dump or frida_ios_keychain_dump.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the return value (address) but does not disclose error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., connection, session), or performance implications. Basic transparency but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, then parameter descriptions. No fluff. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 required params and no output schema, description covers basic usage and return value but lacks error handling, preconditions (e.g., must be attached to a process), and context about module naming. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does: target as 'process name or pid', module_name as 'module or None for all', export_name as the name. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Find a single export by name, optionally scoped to a module.' The verb 'find' and resource 'export' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_find_symbol_by_name and frida_find_functions_matching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding a single export, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_enumerate_exports or frida_find_symbol_by_name. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly describes the tool as read-only (listing classes) and explains parameters like filter (case-insensitive) and limit (default 500). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or mention any side effects, timeouts, or error conditions. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It lists parameters in a clear, bullet-like format without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. This is an ideal structure for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain return values. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of class names as strings). Additionally, the device_id parameter is omitted. For a simple enumeration tool, these gaps are noticeable but not critical. The description covers the core functionality adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains target as 'process name or pid,' filter as an optional case-insensitive substring with examples, and limit with its default. However, the device_id parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. Overall, it adds meaning for 3 of 4 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Enumerate loaded Java/ART classes in a target process,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like frida_java_list_methods (which lists methods) and frida_java_choose (which searches for instances), so an agent can easily understand what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the prerequisite 'Requires Java/ART runtime in the target (Android app or JVM process),' which gives context on when it's applicable. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives (e.g., frida_java_choose or frida_dump_class), nor does it specify when not to use it. Usage is implied but not fully detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the checks performed but does not mention safety, potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the tool modifies any state. It is not misleading but lacks completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a front-loaded summary and structured details. Each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it does. However, it does not describe the return value or output format, which would be helpful for an agent to process results. Overall, it covers the basics but could provide more complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it clarifies that the 'target' parameter is a process name or PID, and that it is a string. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect LD_PRELOAD and suspicious library injections' on Linux. It lists specific checks (LD_PRELOAD env var, /etc/ld.so.preload, loaded libraries marking non-standard paths). This is distinct from sibling tools like frida_linux_seccomp_detect or frida_linux_dbus_intercept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for detecting preload injections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other Linux security tools). No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites. The usage context is inferred but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions scheduling on the main queue but omits details on asynchronicity, return values, error handling, or prerequisites. The transparency is partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences explaining purpose and technical detail, plus a line for each parameter. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers basic usage. However, it lacks comparison to similar tools (e.g., frida_eval), error behavior, and prerequisite setup, making it only moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for 'target' (process name/pid) and 'js_code' (JavaScript code), adding marginal value beyond the schema types. More detail on format or constraints would improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool schedules JavaScript on the ObjC main thread dispatch queue, using a specific API. This is a distinct verb+resource action that differentiates from other frida tools by specifying the queue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'UI/AppKit-safe execution', implying use when needing main thread safety. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like frida_eval or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the recovery mechanism (looks up original target, attempts to create new session) but does not cover edge cases, success/failure behavior, or potential side effects like detaching the old session. This leaves some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, with the core action stated first. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter well but lacks details on return values and error conditions. It is moderately complete but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context to the only parameter: '`session_id`: optional; defaults to the current active session.' This clarifies the default behavior and semantics, which the schema alone (with no parameter description) does not provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Recover a broken/crashed Frida session by re-attaching.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling session tools like frida_session_resume or frida_session_is_detached, which handle other aspects of session management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool should be used when a session is broken or crashed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the patching behavior and return value, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., reversibility, persistence, required privileges) or the impact on the process. This is adequate for a simple patch but leaves potential risks unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-line summary of the purpose, followed by concise technical details. Every sentence adds value, and the format is clean and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality but omits prerequisites (e.g., must be attached to a process via Frida), expected state before invocation, and whether the patch is per-session or persistent. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is moderately complete but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description adds essential meaning: 'target: process name or pid (string).' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the type definition, enabling correct agent usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Patch EtwEventWrite to neutralise ETW event logging' on Windows. It specifies the mechanism (overwriting with xor eax,eax; ret) and context (standard anti-logging bypass), distinguishing it from sibling bypass tools like frida_win_amsi_bypass.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies Windows usage and mentions target as process name/pid, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., AMSI bypass) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are provided, relying on implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains internal mechanisms (Interceptor, Thread.backtrace, symbolication) and return limits. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., hooking may affect performance, no mention of cleanup) nor that the tool requires an active Frida session. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden but falls short of full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: one-line summary, technical detail paragraph, bullet-like parameter descriptions, and output note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output format and limits, but lacks error conditions, dependency on a connected device/process, and whether the tool reverts hooks automatically. Given no output schema, the return info is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: specifies target is process name/pid, explains function_name_or_addr formats (hex or symbol name) with examples, and notes default duration. This compensates well for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it traces call stacks for a specific function, using verb 'Trace' and resource 'call stacks for a specific function'. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_hook_native_function (which hooks without backtrace) and frida_trace (which is more general).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like frida_stalker or frida_hook_native_function. It assumes the agent knows the task context, lacking when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the tool reads the full module and writes to disk, and notes the potential difference from on-disk binary. However, it omits details about error handling, permission requirements, or whether the tool suspends the process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, no extraneous information. The main action is front-loaded, and supporting details are efficiently placed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavioral nuance (potential difference from on-disk), and parameter semantics. Missing error scenarios or edge cases, but adequate for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters: 'target' as process name or PID, 'module_name' as exact or partial name, and 'output_path' as local file path. This goes beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Dump' and resources 'live in-memory module image', clearly states action (reads from memory and writes to disk), and distinguishes from enumeration/read tools by noting the dumped image may differ from on-disk binary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes hint 'Critical for unpacking' but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like frida_enumerate_modules or frida_read_memory. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the behavior: enumerates ranges, protection matching is superset, returns base, size, protection, backing file. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, and no annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter clarification. No extraneous information; can be read quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, parameters, and return data adequately for the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema). It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though an example return could enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'target' as process name/pid and 'protection' as filter with examples and superset matching, plus default value. This goes beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool enumerates memory ranges matching a protection filter, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_enumerate_modules or frida_enumerate_sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 or when not to use it. The description implies usage for filtering memory ranges by protection, but lacks exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately describes the operation as enumeration (read-only) but lacks extra behavioral context like error handling, permission requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single sentence describing the action, followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information. It could mention what happens if the module or target is not found, but overall it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by defining 'target' as process name or pid and 'module_name' with examples. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'enumerate' and the resource 'sections of a module', with explicit fields returned (name, base, size, protection). It distinguishes from sibling enumeration tools like frida_enumerate_modules or frida_enumerate_exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when needing sections of a module) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for use or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses persistence, auto-unload via duration_seconds, message collection via send(), and return of script_id. However, it lacks details on limits, conflicts with other hooks, or behavior on session disconnection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two well-structured paragraphs. Parameter list is clear and each sentence serves a purpose. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers prerequisite, parameters, return value, and event retrieval. Absence of output schema is mitigated by explaining script_id and related tools. Could mention that hook persists until unloaded or session ends, but still adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter: js_code (Frida JS with send), name (optional label, default 'hook_N'), duration_seconds (auto-unload, 0=forever). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Install a persistent hook that stays active and collects messages.' This distinguishes it from other hook tools like frida_hook_native_function or frida_uninstall_hooks by emphasizing persistence and message collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It specifies a prerequisite ('Requires an active session') and mentions how to retrieve hook events, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Some guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool kills a process and describes matching logic, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or that the operation is destructive. For a killing tool, more behavioral insight is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently convey the action and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the input parameters and behavior well. It lacks mention of return values or success indicators, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that target can be an integer PID (as string) or process name, and details the search strategy (exact then substring). It also clarifies device_id defaults to local device, adding significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Kill a process by PID or name on a device.' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like frida_launch_app or frida_resume_process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains parameter behavior in detail: how target is matched (exact then substring), and that device_id defaults to local device. It provides clear context for using the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes hooking Process.setExceptionHandler and captured data (type, address, register context), but lacks details on side effects, removal, or prerequisites. No annotations provided, so description carries burden but is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded purpose, efficient parameter explanations. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, mechanism, and parameters. Missing return value info and explicit statement that handler is removed after duration. Almost complete for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema: 'target' clarified as process name or pid, 'duration_seconds' explained with default 10. Compensates for 0% schema description coverage effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'install' and resource 'exception handler' to catch crashes. Distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on exception handling, not other hooks or debugging tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implies usage for catching crashes, but doesn't compare with alternatives like frida_hook_native_function or other handlers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calls `swift_demangle` from libswiftCore.dylib inside the target and requires the target to have the Swift runtime loaded. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, front-loading the most important information. No unnecessary words are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description explains the input parameters and mechanism but does not explicitly mention the output (likely the demangled string). This omission makes it slightly incomplete, as the agent does not know what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that `target` is a process name or pid with the Swift runtime, and `symbol` is a mangled name with an example. This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Demangle' and the resource 'Swift symbol', and distinguishes from siblings as no other tool has 'demangle' in its name. It also specifies the method 'using the in-process Swift runtime'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information on prerequisites, such as requiring the Swift runtime loaded, which is implied but not stated as a condition. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It explains the mechanism (overwrite to return E_INVALIDARG) and that it's a standard bypass, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., detection risk, process stability impact, requirement for admin rights). Transparency is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action and platform, then provides a brief mechanism and a single-line parameter definition. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, mechanism, and parameter. It could mention whether the patch is reversible or if any dependencies exist, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly defines the 'target' parameter as a process name or pid, adding meaning beyond the schema's simple title. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), this explanation compensates well. It is clear and sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: patching AmsiScanBuffer to bypass AMSI scanning. It specifies the platform ([Windows]) and the function targeted, making it distinct from sibling tools. The description is specific, with a clear verb (Patch) and resource (AmsiScanBuffer).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for AMSI bypass on Windows but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_win_etw_bypass). No when-not or comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer context. Guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions attaching an Interceptor and logging up to 6 arguments, but omits details about output format, side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is destructive. Basic transparency but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with platform and action, each sentence adds value. Three brief paragraphs cover purpose, behavior, and parameters efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers platform, behavior, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks explanation of return values or error handling, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning: explains target (process name or PID), apis (list of API names with examples), and duration_seconds (default 10). This goes beyond the raw schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it hooks Win32 APIs and logs call arguments, specifying target DLLs and argument count. It distinguishes itself among siblings like frida_win_registry_monitor and frida_win_com_intercept by focusing on general Win32 API monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for monitoring Win32 API calls but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_win_registry_monitor or other hooking tools. No when-not-to or usage exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool hooks and logs invocations, attempts CLR bridge with fallback, and has a default duration. However, it does not explain the mutation's permanence, cleanup, or how logs are accessed, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (7 lines), front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear bullet-like list for parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains parameters and fallback behavior but lacks details on output (e.g., where logs go, return value) and does not indicate if the tool is blocking or async. Given the absence of an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully explains each parameter beyond the schema's titles. It provides examples ('mscorlib'), clarifies target as 'name or pid', and specifies defaults. This adds significant value for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Hook a .NET method'), the resource ('.NET method'), and the platform ('Windows'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying .NET on Windows, and mentions fallback mechanisms, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_hook_native_function). While the name and platform hint imply usage for .NET on Windows, no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the injection process (loads library, calls entrypoint with data) but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether a session is required. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences and a clear bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the action, parameters, and underlying function. It could mention return values or behavior on failure, but overall it provides sufficient context for an injection tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: 'target' as process name/pid, 'library_path' as path, 'entrypoint' as optional symbol, and 'data' as optional string argument. This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool injects a shared library into a target process, specifying the file types (.dylib/.so) and the underlying Frida function. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'frida_inject_library_blob' which injects a blob instead of a file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for injecting shared libraries but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative hooks or injection methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool replaces the implementation and mentions the replacement_js parameter details and revert_after auto-revert. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, persistence beyond session, or success/failure conditions. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement, a single contrast line, and four bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and is a mutation tool. While the description covers what the tool does and its parameters, it does not mention what the return value indicates (e.g., success/failure) or error conditions. Given the complexity of replacing a native function, additional details on behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant meaning: target is 'process name or pid', function_addr is 'hex address', replacement_js is 'JS code returning a NativeCallback', and revert_after is 'auto-revert after N seconds'. This goes beyond the schema's property titles to clarify purpose and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces a native function using Interceptor.replace, differentiating it from intercept (which logs). It specifies the verb 'replace' and the resource 'native function', and the sibling list includes frida_interceptor_revert for reverting, so the purpose is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly contrasts with intercept tools ('Unlike intercept (which logs), this replaces the implementation.'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among siblings like frida_interceptor_revert or other hooking tools, missing an opportunity for fuller guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavior. It mentions using Frida's device.spawn() and device.resume(), and returns a result object. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., killing existing instances) or permissions needed, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by parameter details and behavior explanation. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameters, return format. It could be enhanced by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., device connection) but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: for identifier, it specifies 'app bundle id (iOS/macOS) or package name (Android)' with an example; for device_id, it states 'optional Frida device id; defaults to local device.' This far exceeds the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Spawn and resume an application by bundle/package identifier.' It specifies the resource (application) and the verb (spawn and resume), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_kill_app or frida_resume_process. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context, such as the identifier format and optional device_id, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_spawn_with_options or frida_resume_process. The usage is implied but lacks guidance on exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details the specific hooks installed (ptrace, sysctl, ObjC, getppid, Android Debug.isDebuggerConnected) and states the return value is a list of successful bypasses, giving good insight into its behavior without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (~100 words), front-loaded with the main action, then lists hooks, parameter, and return value in a logical, scannable format with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, how it works (specific hooks), what input is needed, and what is returned, making it self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly defines the 'target' parameter as a process name or PID (string), adding critical context beyond the bare schema type declaration (100% schema coverage compensated).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool bypasses debugger detection mechanisms, with specific hooks listed (ptrace, sysctl, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like anti-root or SSL pinning bypass.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other bypass tools (e.g., anti-root, AMSI bypass). No prerequisites or contextual advice is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a non-destructive, read-only check operation. It is concise but sufficient for a simple verification tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is perfectly sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could optionally mention that it returns version info, but the current description is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; it succinctly describes the tool's purpose without requiring parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Verify' and explicitly states the resource 'frida + frida-tools install state and version'. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform actions like hooking, enumeration, or injection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it can be inferred that this is a prerequisite check, no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool includes local and debug symbols, but lacks mention of performance, permissions, error conditions, or side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or missing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about the tool's return format or output structure. Given there is no output schema, users are left guessing what fields each symbol contains. This gap reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: target (process name or pid), module_name (default main executable), filter (case-insensitive substring), limit (default 1000). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all symbols (not just exports) from a module.' It contrasts with the sibling tool frida_enumerate_exports, providing immediate differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions when to use this tool over frida_enumerate_exports (includes local/debug symbols). It also describes each parameter's role, giving context for appropriate use. However, it doesn't cover when not to use it or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses using NSData (sandboxed), return format (UTF-8 or hex for binary), and size cap (64KB). Could mention error cases, but sufficient for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: four sentences covering purpose, parameters, mechanism, and limitations. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return format and size limit. It addresses the tool's scope adequately but could mention when to use it over other file tools, which is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'target' as process name/pid and 'path' as file path, plus output details. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Read a file from the target process's filesystem view,' specifying the verb 'read' and the resource 'file' in a distinct context. It differentiates from siblings like write or list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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. While it mentions using NSData and sandbox, it doesn't state exclusions or conditions like file size limits or binary handling, which would help choose between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses the underlying method, exact match behavior, and return type (list of addresses). It is clear that this is a read-only operation, though it could mention if it requires an attached session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using two short paragraphs to convey purpose and parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter function, the description covers purpose and returns. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., need for an active device/session) and error conditions, making it barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: target as process name or pid, and name as exact function name. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type hints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds all functions with an exact name, specifying the exact method DebugSymbol.findFunctionsNamed. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like frida_find_functions_matching (pattern matching) and frida_find_symbol_by_name (general symbols).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for exact name search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it hooks a system function, queries for specific password types, and returns particular fields with encoding details. Lacks information about prerequisites or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return structure clearly. It covers the key behavioral aspects and parameter meaning, though could mention required privileges or process state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'target' is clarified as 'process name or pid (string)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition. This is sufficient for a simple parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Dump accessible Keychain items from a target process' with platform prefix. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools that focus on other iOS/macOS operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains internal mechanism (hooking SecItemCopyMatching) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not directly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the underlying mechanism (reads /proc/self/status, calls prctl(PR_GET_SECCOMP)) and the output (seccomp mode, filter count, NoNewPrivs flag). With no annotations, this adds valuable behavioral context, though permissions or side effects are not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with the purpose front-loaded in the first line. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It efficiently covers what, how, and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple detection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, mechanism, and return values. No additional context is necessary for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'target' is described as 'process name or pid (string)', which clarifies the schema's minimal 'string' type. This is sufficient for the agent to properly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Detect' and the specific resource 'seccomp sandbox status in a target process'. It is platform-specific with '[Linux]' prefix, differentiating it from other detection tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives, no usage context, and no exclusions. It does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool handles instruction cache flushing (ARM) and is safer for code regions, which are key behavioral traits. Missing details on reversibility or side effects, but adequate for basic transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, safety, and parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and safety context. It lacks details on return values or prerequisites, but for a simple patch operation it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does so for all three: target (process name or pid), address (hex string), hex_bytes (hex-encoded bytes) with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action 'Patch executable code at an address using Memory.patchCode', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it handles instruction cache flushing and is safer than raw write_memory for code regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly compares this tool to 'raw write_memory', indicating when to use it ('for code regions'). However, it does not provide explicit scenarios where it should not be used or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the size cap (64KB), return format (hex dump), and address format. It does not cover error handling, but is otherwise transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and efficiently conveys purpose, parameter details, and return value. No extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers key aspects: action, parameter formats, size limit, and return. Missing clarification on 'target' and prerequisites, but adequate for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description explains 'address' (hex string example) and 'size' (bytes capped at 64KB). However, 'target' is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its meaning (process name, PID, etc.).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read raw memory from a target process,' specifying the action (read) and resource (raw memory). It is distinct from sibling tools like frida_write_memory (write) and frida_memory_scan (scan).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for reading raw memory at a specific address, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use over alternatives like frida_memory_dump_regions. However, the clarity is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses device-level interception, auto-resume, and parameter defaults, though missing potential conflicts or state effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and front-loaded; every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality and parameters but lacks details on return value, lifecycle, and interaction with other spawn-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: device_id (optional, defaults to local) and duration_seconds (default 30, max 120).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool enables spawn gating to intercept all new process spawns on a device, distinguishing it from siblings like 'frida_spawn_with_options' and 'frida_await_spawn'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for intercepting all spawns but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions injection and return value but lacks preconditions like requiring an attached device or session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise description with a clear bullet for the parameter, no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers purpose, parameter, platforms, and return value. Could mention need for active Frida session but minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description explains the sole parameter 'target' as process name or pid, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Inject a universal SSL pinning bypass script' and lists specific platforms and mechanisms, distinguishing it from sibling bypass tools like anti-debug or anti-root.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for SSL pinning bypass on Android and iOS/macOS, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the behavioral process: parsing PE header, comparing sections, and flagging discrepancies. It clearly describes what the tool does and what kind of anomalies it detects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the detection mechanism and parameter. Minor omission is expected output format, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'target' is explained as 'process name or pid (string),' adding meaning beyond the basic schema type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this clarification is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects process hollowing on Windows via PE section comparison. It specifies the method and flags (e.g., RWX .text, size mismatches), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other platforms or techniques.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the target parameter and notes the Windows platform, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format and default behavior (device_id defaults to local device). However, it does not mention potential prerequisites, error conditions, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence purpose, then parameter and return details, and a short use-case note. No redundant words, and critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, return format, and platform relevance. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., active device connection) and error handling, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'device_id'. The description compensates fully by explaining it is an optional Frida device id, where to obtain it (from frida_list_devices), and that it defaults to the local device. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and the resource 'frontmost app' is specific. The description explicitly states it returns {identifier, name, pid} and notes it's useful on iOS/Android to identify the currently visible app, distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_list_apps or frida_get_device_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating the tool is useful for identifying the currently visible app on iOS/Android. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates that the tool returns a list of devices with id, name, and type, implying a read-only operation. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is fully complete for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by describing the output format (id, name, type), which is not present in the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('all available Frida devices'), and the scope ('USB, remote, local'). It also specifies the return fields (id, name, type), making the tool's purpose very distinct from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before specifying a device_id in other tools'. It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, which is acceptable for a simple discovery tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the filter behavior (case-insensitive substring) but does not describe the return format (e.g., list of PIDs, names). The baseline behavior of enumeration is clear, but details on output structure are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds equivalent and filter detail. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks explicit return value description, relying on the frida-ps equivalence. Slightly incomplete but adequate for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning: 'optional case-insensitive name substring filter' explains the parameter's purpose and behavior beyond the schema's raw type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it enumerates running processes via Frida's local device, with a verb and resource. It also mentions being equivalent to frida-ps, which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like frida_list_apps or frida_list_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the tool's purpose and an optional filter, and the name implies it's for processes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like other listing tools. The context of sibling tools helps, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description conveys behavioral traits well: it stops hooks, clears the list, and notes that collected messages persist. This is sufficient disclosure for a tool with no destructive hint annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a clarifying detail. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the behavior (unloading hooks, message retention) leaving no ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool unloads all persistent hook scripts, stops active hooks, and clears the hook list. The verb 'unload' and resource 'persistent hook scripts' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'frida_install_hook' or 'frida_list_hooks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'in the current session' but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not compare with alternatives or indicate if selective unloading is possible, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool captures operations with details (API name, operation type, algorithm, key bytes, I/O sizes) and explains parameters. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or non-modifying nature beyond 'capture'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a clear header, platform-specific bullet points, captured data details, and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and each sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what is captured but does not specify how results are returned (e.g., streamed, logged, or stored). Given no output schema, it could be more complete by mentioning output format or retrieval method. Otherwise, it covers purpose, parameters, and platforms adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'target' as process name or pid and 'duration_seconds' with default 10 and purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hook crypto APIs to capture encryption/decryption operations live.' It specifies platforms and APIs (e.g., CCCrypt, javax.crypto.Cipher.doFinal), distinguishing it from generic hook tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for capturing crypto operations on specific platforms but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like frida_hook_native_function or frida_win_crypto_hook. It provides clear context but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses NSFileManager inside the target process, reflecting the sandbox view, and returns file names and directory flags. This provides key behavioral context, though it omits details on error handling or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, the second and third detail parameters and behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavioral nuance (sandbox view), and return type. This provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: 'target: process name or pid (string)' and 'path: directory to list (default '/')'. This clarifies parameter type and default value, adding significant value beyond the schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List files in a directory on the target process's filesystem.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (files in a directory), and context (target process). This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like frida_file_read or frida_file_write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for inspecting a process's sandbox via NSFileManager, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from other file-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It specifies return fields (identifier, name, pid) and default device_id, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any permissions needed. More explicit safety disclosure would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with main purpose. No unnecessary words. Parameter description is concise and embedded efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains return format and default behavior. Could mention dependency on device connection, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the sole parameter 'device_id' as 'optional Frida device id; defaults to local device', adding meaning beyond the schema. This compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all installed applications (not just running) and distinguishes from sibling frida_list_processes. The verb 'list' and resource 'installed applications' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly contrasts with frida_list_processes, which only returns running processes, guiding when to use this tool vs the alternative. Implicitly states when not to use (if you only need running processes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it enumerates regions matching filter_protection, reads via Memory.readByteArray(), saves to .bin files, skips regions >64MB, has a 5-minute timeout, and returns a list of dumped regions with paths. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but is fairly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose line followed by explanatory paragraphs and parameter details. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential functionality, parameters, and behavioral notes (size limit, timeout, return value). It lacks discussion of errors or dependencies, but is complete for a dump tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does: target (process name or pid), output_dir (local directory, created if needed), filter_protection (with examples like 'r--', 'rwx'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's simple type strings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool dumps all readable memory regions from a target process to disk, using specific filtering via filter_protection. It uses a specific verb 'dump' and resource 'memory regions', which distinguishes it from siblings that enumerate, scan, or read memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (dump regions to disk) and provides filtering examples. It mentions limitations (64MB skip, 5-minute timeout) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like frida_enumerate_ranges or frida_memory_scan. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the script survives session detach and only killing the process removes it. This is sufficient for a simple tool, though it omits potential side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds information (purpose, behavior, parameter definitions). No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core behavior and parameters. It lacks explanation of return values or errors, but for a straightforward injection tool this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'target' is a process name or pid (string) and 'js_code' is Frida JS code to inject and eternalize. This adds value beyond the schema, but could be more precise (e.g., format of pid).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Inject' and the resource 'script', and adds the specific action 'eternalize' which differentiates it from sibling tools like frida_script_load, frida_script_load_file, etc. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the effect of eternalization and how to remove it, providing context for when to use this tool (when persistence across sessions is needed). However, it does not contrast with alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It describes the hooking mechanism and output format, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., process disruption) or permissions needed. Still, it is fairly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a header, bullet points, and a usage tip. It is detailed but not overly verbose, though some information (like specific library hooks) could be seen as supplementary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameters, mechanism, and usage. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: target (process name/pid), output_file (local path), duration_seconds (default 30). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts TLS session keys for Wireshark decryption, using specific hooks on BoringSSL and macOS SecureTransport. It uniquely identifies the tool among many frida siblings (e.g., frida_ssl_pinning_disable serves a different purpose).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use the output (point Wireshark to the file) and implies the tool is for capturing TLS keys. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but provides clear context for when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses hooks on specific APIs, parameter semantics (speed_factor, fixed_time), and a 30-second active duration. It lacks details on reversibility or side effects, but the provided info is substantial for a tool of this complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, detailed hook explanation, and parameter list. It front-loads the key action ('Warp time perception'). It is slightly verbose (e.g., listing APIs) but not wasteful; each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral trait (30s duration). It omits possible error conditions or interaction with other Frida tools, but for a 3-parameter tool, it is satisfactorily complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: target as process name or PID, speed_factor with concrete examples (0.0 freeze, 1.0 normal, etc.), and fixed_time's override behavior. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool warps time perception for a target process, detailing the hooked APIs (gettimeofday, clock_gettime, etc.) and the anti-sandbox evasion purpose. This differentiates it from sibling tools like frida_anti_debug_bypass or frida_anti_root_bypass, which target different evasion techniques.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Common uses: bypass time-based anti-analysis checks, accelerate timers, freeze expiry checks,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly states the tool is read-only and does not execute. No additional side effects or limitations are noted, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds context. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter parse tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It specifies what it does, its purpose, and what it does not do, leaving no ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter is a 'Frida CLI `--options-file`' and that it returns 'shell-style tokens'. It could elaborate on the expected format of the options file.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'Frida CLI `--options-file`', and mentions it's a planning/inspection helper, distinguishing it from execution tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states its use as a planning/inspection helper and notes it does not execute the file, giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternative tools for execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (status, session id, target, pid, device name) and implies a read-only check. It does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites, but for a health-check tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by return details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's function and return values adequately for a simple health-check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by listing return fields, which goes beyond the schema. With zero parameters, baseline is 4, and the description meets that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose using specific verb 'check if the current Frida session is alive' and lists return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a health-check for session-based tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using it as a health-check before running session-based tools, providing clear context. It doesn't specify when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the tool's effect: it changes which session subsequent operations target. This is the key behavioral trait, and it is clearly communicated. No contradictions or missing critical details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, each bearing essential information. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, the second explains the parameter and its effect. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter meaning, prerequisite, and downstream implications. It is fully sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter session_id is explained with its source (frida_list_sessions) and purpose, which adds valuable meaning beyond the raw schema (0% coverage). The description compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (switch), the resource (active Frida session), and distinguishes from siblings by specifically mentioning session management. It also ties to the prerequisite sibling tool frida_list_sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to switch the active session) and provides context that subsequent calls depend on this selection. It implicitly advises using frida_list_sessions first to get the session_id, but does not explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the action (listing threads) and the return format (thread id, state, registers). Although no annotations exist, the description is transparent about the read-only nature and expected output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the parameter and return values in a structured way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, what the parameter means, and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a title for 'target', while the description explains that it accepts a process name or pid (string). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all threads in a target process, and specifies that it returns state and registers. It distinguishes itself from sibling enum tools like frida_enumerate_modules by focusing on threads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when thread enumeration is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It implies read-only behavior and lists output fields. No destructive indications, and the description is truthful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no redundant information, and the key action is stated first. Every sentence is valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists all relevant output fields (session id, target, pid, device, active flag, connection alive) without requiring an output schema. For a no-input list tool, it is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description adds value by explaining the output fields. The schema is empty, but the description provides meaning beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active Frida sessions'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like frida_list_hooks or frida_list_processes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is clear, and the sibling context helps differentiate. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, though the distinction is inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it attaches to the process, reads in 1MB chunks via ObjC NSData, uses Frida's binary channel, reassembles locally, supports large files, and has a timeout. This is comprehensive disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (5 lines) and well-structured: a one-line summary, then a paragraph of behavioral details, and a bullet-style list for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file download tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the process and supports large files. It could optionally mention return value or success/failure indication, but the core functionality is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds full meaning for all three parameters: target (process name/pid), remote_path (absolute path), local_path (local write path). This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('download a file') and the resource ('from the target process's filesystem to the local host'). Among siblings like frida_file_list and frida_file_read, this tool is clearly distinguished as a file download operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes chunked transfer for large files and a 2-minute timeout, providing helpful context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling file tools (e.g., frida_file_read) or specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the prerequisite (active session) and the runtime resolution behavior. It does not mention potential side effects or return values, but the core behavior is clear and consistent with the tool's purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (few sentences) and well-structured: purpose line, prerequisite, parameter explanations, and comparison with sibling. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers invocation details well. It does not explain what happens after hooking (e.g., return values or effects), but for a hook tool this may be implicit. Slight omission but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully: explains module as partial match, offset as hex, name as optional label. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool hooks a native function using module name and hex offset. It distinguishes itself from the sibling frida_hook_native_function by explicitly noting the difference in addressing (offset vs absolute). The verb 'Hook' and resource 'native function' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a prerequisite (requires active session from frida_connect) and provides a clear when-to-use vs alternative: 'Unlike frida_hook_native_function... useful when ASLR is in play.' This helps the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses the mechanism (Interceptor.onLeave), duration (30 seconds), and logging behavior (first 50 calls), which is transparent and beyond what annotations would provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose, mechanism, parameters, and additional info in a clear flow, though slightly verbose in listing examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers return values (confirmation and logs) and all necessary context for the tool's operation, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter with examples and interpretation (ptr()), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Spoof the return value of a function' and provides a classic anti-debug bypass context, distinguishing it from siblings like frida_anti_debug_bypass which may have broader scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit use cases (bypass ptrace, spoof isDebuggerAttached) and function examples, but does not compare to similar tools like frida_anti_debug_bypass for exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frida-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fuzzmind/frida-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fuzzmind/frida-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![frida-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fuzzmind/frida-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fuzzmind/frida-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fuzzmind/frida-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server