frida_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies the tool runs a trace for a set duration and stops, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the target), output behavior (e.g., where results go), or requirements like a running Frida session. Key behavioral aspects such as the effect of `quiet` or `decorate` are omitted.

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 very short, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure presents a command-line template followed by parameter explanations, which is reasonable. However, it omits important sections like output, usage notes, or examples for other parameters.

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 tool's complexity (30 parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how tracing works, what the output looks like, or how to filter using the many exclusion/inclusion parameters. The agent cannot confidently use this tool without guessing.

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 the description must add meaning for all parameters. It only explains two (target and include) with examples. The remaining 28 parameters, many with defaults and specific roles (e.g., mode, exclude, include_objc_method), remain completely undocumented. This severely limits the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 that this tool runs 'frida-trace' with specific filters, targeting a process, and for a given duration. It identifies the key parameters (target, include, duration_seconds) and provides examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling hooking tools like frida_hook_native_function or frida_intercept_objc_method, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 gives a command template but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other trace or hook tools. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose between modes (attach vs spawn). The lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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