frida_portal_get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions 'queued' but does not explain whether reading is destructive, the nature of lifecycle events, or any side effects associated with the 'clear' parameter.

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 of 5 words; it is concise but lacks structure and essential information. It front-loads the verb and resource but stops short.

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 presence of 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling event tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, event types, or the effect of the 'clear' parameter.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (portal_id, clear, limit). The description ignores parameters entirely.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'queued PortalService lifecycle events,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like frida_portal_post or frida_bus_get_events.

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 such as frida_event_get_events or frida_compiler_watch_get_events. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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