frida_device_get_usb

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states what the tool does, but fails to explain what happens if no USB device is found, the meaning of the timeout parameter, or whether the function throws errors. The timeout default of 0 is not explained, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It uses precise technical language referencing the underlying API, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context. It does not mention the return type (likely a Frida device object), failure modes (e.g., DeviceNotFoundError), or the effect of the timeout parameter. For a tool that interacts with physical devices, this is incomplete.

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 0% description coverage and the only parameter (timeout) is not explained in the description. The schema provides no context for its usage, and the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema structure. The parameter remains opaque to the agent.

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 retrieves the first USB Frida device via a specific API call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like frida_device_get_remote or frida_device_get_matching by specifying 'USB' and 'first', making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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, error conditions, or comparison with other device enumeration tools like frida_list_devices or frida_device_get_remote. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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