frida_get_hook_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the 'clear' parameter but does not disclose whether reading is destructive (e.g., are messages consumed?), any side effects, or the stateful nature of the queue. This leaves key behavioral traits implicit.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains the parameter. No wasted words. It is well front-loaded and efficient.

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's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'queued events' are, how they relate to persistent hook scripts, or how the output is structured. This lack of context reduces completeness.

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 adds meaningful context to the single boolean parameter 'clear' by explaining its effect: 'if True, also clear hook event queues after reading.' This goes beyond the schema, which only provides a default. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable.

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 retrieves queued events from persistent hook scripts, using a specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_clear_hook_messages or other event retrieval tools, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as frida_clear_hook_messages or other event-reading tools. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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