frida_java_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that JS code is auto-wrapped in Java.perform() and that the tool returns collected send() messages. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects, or limitations beyond the basic wrapping.

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 and well-structured. It includes a clear one-sentence summary followed by bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be more formally structured.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and main parameters adequately. It explains auto-wrapping and return type. However, it omits the device_id parameter and does not mention error handling or environment prerequisites, leaving 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?

The description adds meaning to the two required parameters: 'target' is process name or pid, 'java_js_code' is JS auto-wrapped. However, the third parameter 'device_id' is not described at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but misses one parameter, making it average.

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 inside a Java.perform() block.' It specifies the verb (execute), resource (JS inside Java.perform), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on Java method calling. The explanation of auto-wrapping and usage of Frida APIs is specific and helpful.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_eval or frida_java_hook_method. It lacks information about prerequisites, context for invocation, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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