frida_script_get_events

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Read queued events' without disclosing whether reading is destructive, requires a running script, or has rate limits. The 'clear' parameter implies optional event consumption, but this is not explained.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but this sacrifices necessary detail. It is not optimally structured for clarity, as it omits parameter explanations and usage context.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain event types, return format, parameter effects, or operational prerequisites.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the five parameters (script_id, session_id, kind, clear, limit). Parameter names offer minimal hints, but the agent receives no semantic guidance.

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 states 'Read queued events emitted by long-running scripts,' identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes script events from other get_events tools (e.g., session, bus) but does not differentiate from frida_script_get_log_events, which also pertains to scripts.

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 like frida_event_get_events or frida_session_get_events. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.

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