frida_script_call_rpc

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Call a function' but does not clarify side effects, whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous, or any requirements like the script being loaded. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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?

At one sentence, the description is very concise but lacks necessary detail. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, and every word earns its place but does not convey enough information.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, return values, or special behaviors, failing to provide adequate context for an AI agent.

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 description provides no information about the four parameters (script_id, method, args, session_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without meaning for the input fields.

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 ('Call a function') and the resource ('exposed through rpc.exports by a loaded script'), making it distinct from sibling tools. It provides a specific verb and resource, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frida_eval or frida_script_post_message. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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