interceptor_frida_attach

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It states injection and bypassing, but omits important details: persistence, side effects (e.g., does it modify the app or system), error behaviors, and whether it requires root or specific Frida versions. This is a significant gap for a destructive-ish tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. No fluff, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 (Frida attachment, SSL unpinning), the description lacks many contextual details: prerequisites (Frida server running?), effects on device, expected output, and error handling. With no output schema, users need more behavioral info.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the choice between app_name and pid. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 attaches to an Android app via Frida and injects SSL unpinning and proxy redirect scripts, specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like interceptor_frida_apps (list apps) and interceptor_frida_detach (detach).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with interceptor_android_activate or other similar tools. Agents lack decision context.

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