frida_script_enable_debugger

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only says 'enable' without explaining what enabling entails (e.g., starts a listener, opens a port, affects script execution). No side effects or requirements are disclosed.

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, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it only minimally adequate in structure.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the debugger does, how the optional parameters affect behavior, or what the expected outcome is.

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 does not mention any of the three parameters (script_id, port, session_id). It provides no additional meaning beyond the bare parameter names and types in 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 'Enable' and the resource 'Frida script debugger for a loaded script'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'frida_script_disable_debugger', so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a loaded script or when not to use it.

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