frida_objc_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions scheduling on the main queue but omits details on asynchronicity, return values, error handling, or prerequisites. The transparency is partial.

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 concise: two sentences explaining purpose and technical detail, plus a line for each parameter. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 basic usage. However, it lacks comparison to similar tools (e.g., frida_eval), error behavior, and prerequisite setup, making it only moderately complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for 'target' (process name/pid) and 'js_code' (JavaScript code), adding marginal value beyond the schema types. More detail on format or constraints would improve.

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 schedules JavaScript on the ObjC main thread dispatch queue, using a specific API. This is a distinct verb+resource action that differentiates from other frida tools by specifying the queue.

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 mentions 'UI/AppKit-safe execution', implying use when needing main thread safety. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like frida_eval or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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