frida_cli_options_file_parse

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly states the tool is read-only and does not execute. No additional side effects or limitations are noted, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds context. Perfectly concise.

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 one-parameter parse tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It specifies what it does, its purpose, and what it does not do, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter is a 'Frida CLI `--options-file`' and that it returns 'shell-style tokens'. It could elaborate on the expected format of the options file.

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 verb 'Parse' and the resource 'Frida CLI `--options-file`', and mentions it's a planning/inspection helper, distinguishing it from execution tools among siblings.

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 explicitly states its use as a planning/inspection helper and notes it does not execute the file, giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternative tools for execution.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.