frida_gum_graft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states to 'run official gum-graft', omitting any details about side effects, safety, required environment, or what happens during execution.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey necessary information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence does not suffice.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose in context, prerequisites, return values, or how it relates to other Frida tools.

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 the description adds no information about parameters. The four parameters (input_path, output_path, extra_args, timeout_seconds) are not explained, so the agent cannot understand their purpose or format beyond the schema.

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 states 'Run official gum-graft when available', which provides a verb and resource. However, 'gum-graft' is domain-specific jargon without explanation. It distinguishes from siblings by name but lacks sufficient clarity for general understanding.

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 alternative tools. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With hundreds of sibling tools, the agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this one.

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