frida_service_get_events

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Read queued events', which is non-destructive, but omits important details like whether reading clears events, if it's blocking, or if it can be called multiple times. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned.

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, 7 words). However, it is too terse for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail. Could be restructured to include parameter info without increasing length significantly.

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?

The description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanation of parameters, return values, prerequisites (e.g., service_id must be from an open service), side effects, and error conditions. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide significantly more contextual detail.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not. The 'clear' and 'limit' parameters have defaults but their semantics are not described. The tool description adds zero information beyond the parameter names from the schema.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('queued events'), and the context ('from an open device service'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling event-retrieval tools like frida_event_get_events or frida_session_get_events by specifying 'device service'.

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 implies that the service must be open but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the need to open a service first via frida_service_open) or when not to use it.

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