frida_android_intent_intercept

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.