frida_await_spawn

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.