interceptor_frida_detach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes injected scripts, implying destructiveness. However, it does not mention failure cases, side effects (e.g., does it stop the Frida server?), or return behavior. Basic disclosure but incomplete.

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 of 10 words with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Perfectly concise for a simple 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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly adequate. It could mention that the session must be attached first (implied but not explicit) or the return value (success/failure). Minor gap, but largely complete.

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 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter. The description adds context by specifying that the target_id comes from interceptor_frida_attach, which is valuable linkage beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is exceeded with this extra guidance.

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 verb 'Detach' and the resource 'Frida session from an Android app', and explains the action 'removing injected scripts'. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'interceptor_frida_attach' and other detach/cleanup tools.

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 after attaching a session via the parameter hint 'Target ID from interceptor_frida_attach', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like interceptor_deactivate_all or interceptor_kill. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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