frida_android_frida_server_status

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.