frida_event_get_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It says 'read queued' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., the 'clear' parameter may destroy events), behavior on invalid subscription_id, or whether it is blocking. The 'clear' parameter action is unexplained.

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?

At 7 words, it is too brief and omits essential information, leading to under-specification rather than concise clarity. Useful structure is missing.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, parameter usage, or preconditions, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and description says nothing about the three parameters (subscription_id, clear, limit). The agent gets no aid in understanding what subscription_id refers to, how clear affects event handling, or what limit controls. This is critical omission.

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 reads 'queued official event subscription events', specifying the resource (events) and source (subscription). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_script_get_events, frida_session_get_events, etc., which may cause ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after subscribing with frida_event_subscribe. The description lacks context on prerequisites or use cases.

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