frida_interactive_eval

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes behavioral traits: creates a one-shot script, collects messages, unloads without disturbing session, and mentions using send() to return data. However, it lacks details on error handling, behavior of optional parameters, and potential side effects.

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 with two sentences and a list for parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter list could be better formatted, but overall no redundant text.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only the required parameters and basic behavior, missing important details like optional parameters, return format, and error scenarios. Adequate for simple use but not for comprehensive 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%, so description must compensate. It explains session_id and js_code but does not describe the other four parameters (runtime, parameters, auto_perform, exit_on_error). This leaves a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Execute arbitrary JS in an existing persistent Frida session (REPL).' It distinguishes itself from sibling inject_script by explaining the lifecycle difference. The verb 'execute' and resource 'JS in persistent session' are specific.

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 clear context: reuses persistent session to preserve hooks/state, and contrasts with inject_script. It implies when to use (when you want to eval without disturbing session) but does not explicitly state when not to use or other alternatives.

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