frida_session_recover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the recovery mechanism (looks up original target, attempts to create new session) but does not cover edge cases, success/failure behavior, or potential side effects like detaching the old session. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 concise at three sentences, with the core action stated first. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter well but lacks details on return values and error conditions. It is moderately complete but could be improved.

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 description adds meaningful context to the only parameter: '`session_id`: optional; defaults to the current active session.' This clarifies the default behavior and semantics, which the schema alone (with no parameter description) does not provide.

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 tool's purpose: 'Recover a broken/crashed Frida session by re-attaching.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling session tools like frida_session_resume or frida_session_is_detached, which handle other aspects of session management.

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 tool should be used when a session is broken or crashed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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