inject_frida_script

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists multiple actions (enable script, sync config, AppSwitch, LSPosed) without explaining side effects, conflicts, or whether existing scripts are replaced. The high parameter count further increases the need for behavioral transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but omits critical details. It front-loads the main action but sacrifices completeness. Some sentences could add value without being verbose.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It does not cover return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or the effect of parameters like 'launchTargetApp'. The tool lacks essential documentation.

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 compensate. It only indirectly references 'target package' and 'script', failing to explain the remaining 8 parameters, including nested objects like 'trigger' and booleans like 'dryRun'. No guidance on scriptName vs scriptContent is provided.

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 enables a Frida script and syncs config, AppSwitch, and LSPosed in one step. This differentiates it from sibling tools like replace_frida_script or individual sync tools. However, it does not elaborate on what 'sync config' entails.

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 implies usage as a bundled operation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sync_appswitch_state or add_custom_hooks. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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