frida_gum_script_evaluate

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the tool has side effects, requires a session, or is read-only. The agent has no insight into what happens when this tool is called.

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 very short but at the expense of usefulness. It is under-specified, not concise in a helpful way. The single sentence provides no structure or key information.

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 of the tool and absence of output schema, annotations, or parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's operation or results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no param explanations in the description, the agent cannot understand the meaning of the three required parameters: target, name, source. The description adds no semantic value 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 'Call GumJS Script.evaluate()' but does not explain what this function does. It repeats the tool name essentially, lacking context on its purpose within Frida. It does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like frida_eval or frida_interactive_eval.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or 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.