frida_remote_device_add

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions auth/keepalive but omits side effects, error conditions, connectivity requirements, or return value. The agent cannot anticipate the tool's full impact.

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 with no unnecessary words. However, it is too terse and could benefit from additional brief details without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of adding a remote device (authentication, keepalive, network), the description lacks essential details like expected response, prerequisites (e.g., device reachable), and failure modes. The tool appears to be state-changing, but no behavioral completeness is provided.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description vaguely refers to 'auth/keepalive options' but does not explain individual parameters like 'certificate', 'origin', or 'token'. The agent lacks sufficient detail to correctly populate the 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 action 'Add a remote device' with specific context 'official auth/keepalive options'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'frida_remote_device_remove' or 'frida_device_get_remote', though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It does not mention alternative tools for managing remote devices, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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