frida_device_override_option

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

With no annotations and no behavioral description, the agent cannot infer what this tool does beyond calling a method. It does not disclose whether it modifies device state, requires permissions, or has side effects.

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?

While the description is very short, it is not concise in a helpful way. It sacrifices essential information for brevity, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 lack of output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral context, the description is severely incomplete. It barely tells the agent what the tool does.

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 does not explain the parameters beyond listing their names in the method call. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the agent has no semantic meaning for 'name', 'value', or 'device_id'.

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 merely restates the function call ('Call Device.override_option(name, value)') without explaining what 'override_option' does. It fails to convey the purpose, such as what kind of option is being overridden or its effect, and does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools.

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. With a large list of sibling tools like frida_device_get_matching, frida_device_get_process, etc., the agent has no contextual clues for selection.

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