frida_package_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('install') but does not mention side effects (e.g., modifies local environment), required permissions, or whether it is destructive. The method reference 'PackageManager.install()' is vague and insufficient.

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 a single sentence, making it concise but severely under-specified. Important details are omitted, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex sibling set, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to cover return values, prerequisites, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (project_root, role, specs, omits). Without parameter explanations, an AI agent cannot understand how to fill them correctly.

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 'Install Frida packages with PackageManager.install()' uses a verb and resource, but 'Frida packages' is ambiguous – it could refer to packages for Frida itself or packages to install via Frida. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like frida_package_search or frida_package_registry.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple package-related siblings, but the description provides no contextual cues or conditions for appropriate use.

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