frida_launch_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavior. It mentions using Frida's device.spawn() and device.resume(), and returns a result object. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., killing existing instances) or permissions needed, leaving some gaps.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by parameter details and behavior explanation. No unnecessary words.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameters, return format. It could be enhanced by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., device connection) but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: for identifier, it specifies 'app bundle id (iOS/macOS) or package name (Android)' with an example; for device_id, it states 'optional Frida device id; defaults to local device.' This far exceeds the bare 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Spawn and resume an application by bundle/package identifier.' It specifies the resource (application) and the verb (spawn and resume), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_kill_app or frida_resume_process. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage context, such as the identifier format and optional device_id, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like frida_spawn_with_options or frida_resume_process. The usage is implied but lacks guidance on exclusions.

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