frida_script_run_file

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions mode behavior and that it collects send() messages, but does not cover error handling, blocking behavior, resource cleanup, or side effects for 11 parameters.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, given the parameter count, it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., listing key parameters). No waste.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Missing details like output format, default behaviors, and parameter semantics beyond mode.

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%, so description should explain parameters. Only mode is partially described (attach vs spawn). Other crucial params like duration_seconds, device_id, parameters object, etc., are not mentioned.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run a Frida JS script against a process', indicating verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling hooks by being a generic script runner. However, could explicitly mention that it runs a file and is for Frida 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 sibling script tools like frida_script_load or frida_gum_script_load. Only explains mode options (attach/spawn) but no context about alternatives or prerequisites.

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