frida_script_eternalize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the script survives session detach and only killing the process removes it. This is sufficient for a simple tool, though it omits potential side effects or permissions.

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 two short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds information (purpose, behavior, parameter definitions). No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core behavior and parameters. It lacks explanation of return values or errors, but for a straightforward injection tool this is acceptable.

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, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'target' is a process name or pid (string) and 'js_code' is Frida JS code to inject and eternalize. This adds value beyond the schema, but could be more precise (e.g., format of pid).

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 verb 'Inject' and the resource 'script', and adds the specific action 'eternalize' which differentiates it from sibling tools like frida_script_load, frida_script_load_file, etc. The purpose is 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?

The description explains the effect of eternalization and how to remove it, providing context for when to use this tool (when persistence across sessions is needed). However, it does not contrast with alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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