frida_time_warp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses hooks on specific APIs, parameter semantics (speed_factor, fixed_time), and a 30-second active duration. It lacks details on reversibility or side effects, but the provided info is substantial for a tool of this complexity.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, detailed hook explanation, and parameter list. It front-loads the key action ('Warp time perception'). It is slightly verbose (e.g., listing APIs) but not wasteful; each sentence adds value.

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 output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral trait (30s duration). It omits possible error conditions or interaction with other Frida tools, but for a 3-parameter tool, it is satisfactorily complete.

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, but the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: target as process name or PID, speed_factor with concrete examples (0.0 freeze, 1.0 normal, etc.), and fixed_time's override behavior. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 tool warps time perception for a target process, detailing the hooked APIs (gettimeofday, clock_gettime, etc.) and the anti-sandbox evasion purpose. This differentiates it from sibling tools like frida_anti_debug_bypass or frida_anti_root_bypass, which target different evasion techniques.

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 includes 'Common uses: bypass time-based anti-analysis checks, accelerate timers, freeze expiry checks,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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