frida_resume_app

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 states the action (resume) but does not explain what happens if the app is not in a suspendable state, whether the action is reversible, or what the return value indicates (no output schema). Basic info is provided but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every element earns its place with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and parameters, but missing context—such as the requirement that the app was previously spawned or suspended—hampers full understanding. Some ties to sibling tools would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains 'pid: Process ID', 'device_type' with allowed values and default 'usb', and 'device_id' as optional. This adds substantial value beyond the schema's type and default fields, though it could be more explicit about how to obtain device IDs.

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: 'Resume a spawned/suspended app.' The verb 'Resume' and resource 'app' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like frida_spawn_app and frida_kill_app, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the app must have been spawned via frida_spawn_app) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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