frida_service_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action ('cancel and forget') but omits side effects like resource cleanup, invalidation of the service_id, or error behavior if the service is not open. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 but minimally informative. It front-loads the action ('Cancel and forget'), but there is no structure or additional details to guide usage. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for 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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the sentence 'Cancel and forget an open device service' is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, lifecycle implications, or how the service_id relates to other sibling tools like frida_service_open. The agent cannot use this tool correctly without additional context.

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; the sole parameter 'service_id' lacks any explanation in both the schema and the description. The description does not clarify what service_id represents or how to obtain a valid value, leaving the agent without essential usage information.

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 uses the verbs 'Cancel and forget' with the resource 'open device service', clearly indicating the action of closing a service. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like frida_service_open or frida_service_request, which handle opening and interacting with services. However, the phrase 'Cancel and forget' is slightly ambiguous and could be more precise, e.g., 'Close and remove the service handle.'

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the service must be open first). There is no mention of context, such as whether this tool should be called after finishing work with a service, or what happens if the service is already closed.

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