frida_worker_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining what a template is, how it is generated, whether it modifies state, or what the return value represents.

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 (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks essential details, making it less effective than a slightly longer description.

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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameter or the nature of the output, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 for the single parameter 'worker_source'. The description does not mention the parameter at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 specifies generating a GumJS Worker template, which is a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling template tools like frida_gumjs_template by specifying 'Worker'. However, it could be more explicit about the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other template tools such as frida_gadget_script_template, frida_sampler_template, or frida_code_writer_template. The description lacks context for selection.

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