frida_cli_compile_bundle

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.