frida_compiler_watch

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions starting a watch and queuing events but does not explain the lifecycle (e.g., whether it's blocking, how events are retrieved, or side effects). The existence of sibling tools like 'frida_compiler_watch_get_events' suggests a workflow, but this is not mentioned, leaving the agent uninformed about important behaviors.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. While this avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure is acceptable for the length but does not earn its place by providing sufficient information for tool invocation.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and is part of a larger workflow (with siblings for getting events and stopping), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, event handling, or how this tool fits into the broader Frida compiler toolset. The agent would likely misuse or misunderstand the tool without additional information.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 9 input parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'entrypoint', 'project_root', or other parameters do. The agent has no guidance on how to set these fields correctly, making parameter usage entirely reliant on external knowledge.

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 states 'Start Compiler.watch() and queue compiler events', which identifies a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks context about what this watch operation entails and how it differs from similar tools like 'frida_compiler_build' or 'frida_compiler_watch_stop'. The purpose is clear but not sufficiently detailed for an agent unfamiliar with the Frida compiler framework.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a session or having a compiler set up), nor any indication of when to avoid using it. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

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