frida_list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all available Frida devices' without explaining side effects (none likely), performance characteristics, or what happens if devices are not found. For a simple read operation, the description is too terse.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose but omits details like what information is returned (e.g., device IDs, types, statuses). For a tool that lists devices, the agent might benefit from knowing whether it returns a list of strings or a structured object. The description is minimally adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The score reflects that the description does not add value beyond the schema, but the schema covers all.

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: 'List all available Frida devices (USB, local, remote).' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('all available Frida devices') with qualifiers that distinguish it from sibling tools like frida_device_info or frida_find_process.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or common use cases. Ideally, it should suggest using this tool to discover devices before connecting or targeting a specific process.

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