frida_anti_root_bypass

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.