frida_script_load_file

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or lifecycle implications beyond 'long-running'. For a tool with 11 parameters, critical behavioral context is missing.

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 clear sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it lacks structured details such as parameter roles or usage context, which would improve usability without sacrificing brevity.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter functions, return values, error states, 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters beyond the schema's names and types. The only parameter hinted at is script_path via 'local JavaScript file', but others like name, event_limit, runtime, etc., remain unexplained.

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 'load', the resource 'local JavaScript file', and the purpose 'as a long-running Frida script'. It distinguishes from siblings like frida_script_load (which likely loads from string) by specifying 'local file'.

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_script_load or frida_script_load_bytes. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.

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