attach_exam_session

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the no-launch/no-login/no-navigate boundary, the endpoint-must-already-exist prerequisite, the exactly-one-tab constraint, and the run_id reuse pattern. It omits failure behavior when multiple or zero tabs match.

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?

Three short sentences, the core action front-loaded, with the negative constraints next and the workflow note last. No filler, though the line wrapping is unnecessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, and the run_id note helps. Still missing is any disambiguation from similarly named attach_* siblings and any parameter format guidance for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints that cdp_endpoint is an explicitly configured local endpoint and that exam_url identifies the tab, but gives no format for the endpoint (host:port vs ws://) or how the URL is matched. The gap remains substantial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: attach exactly one existing exam tab through a configured local CDP endpoint. But siblings attach_exam_browser and attach_exam_session are near-identical in name, and the description gives no cue distinguishing session attachment from browser attachment.

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?

Implies the precondition that a browser is already running and exposing the endpoint, and rules out launching, logging in, or navigating. It never names an alternative tool or says when to pick this over attach_exam_browser or attach_course_browser.

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