frida_file_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it attaches to the process, reads in 1MB chunks via ObjC NSData, uses Frida's binary channel, reassembles locally, supports large files, and has a timeout. This is comprehensive disclosure.

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 concise (5 lines) and well-structured: a one-line summary, then a paragraph of behavioral details, and a bullet-style list for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 file download tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the process and supports large files. It could optionally mention return value or success/failure indication, but the core functionality is clear.

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%, but the description adds full meaning for all three parameters: target (process name/pid), remote_path (absolute path), local_path (local write path). This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the action ('download a file') and the resource ('from the target process's filesystem to the local host'). Among siblings like frida_file_list and frida_file_read, this tool is clearly distinguished as a file download operation.

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 notes chunked transfer for large files and a 2-minute timeout, providing helpful context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling file tools (e.g., frida_file_read) or specify when not to use it.

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