frida_get_device_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states read-only action (returns metadata and process count) but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected), or error handling behavior.

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 compact: three sentences covering purpose, parameter, and return value. No redundant information, front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 no annotations, the description covers the return value adequately. However, it lacks details on error conditions, device reachability, or the format of device metadata, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the parameter's purpose, optionality, default behavior, and source (frida_list_devices). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 it gets info about a specific Frida device or defaults to local, and lists return content (metadata, process count). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like frida_device_get_matching, which may have overlapping purpose.

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 mentions using device_id from frida_list_devices but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., frida_device_get_remote, frida_device_get_usb). No when-not or explicit context for choosing it.

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