xae_attach

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful beyond-annotation detail: attach works against the ROT, and launch=true spawns a new shell at a performance cost ("slow"). It omits failure behavior when no matching instance exists and whether re-attach is cheap, so it adds some but not rich context.

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 short sentences, zero waste. The core action and the instance-selection rule are front-loaded, with the launch caveat demoted to last.

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 values need no prose. Given three optional parameters and the disclosed launch/solution_path semantics, an agent has enough to call it, though the unexplained progid and absent failure-mode behavior leave a small gap.

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 carries the burden; it explains launch (forces a new shell, slow) and solution_path (instance selector), which is real added meaning. But progid is left completely unexplained despite being a non-obvious identifier parameter.

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 (attach) and resource (XAE shell / Visual Studio via the Running Object Table), and adds the disambiguating mechanism that separates it from an open-style sibling. It never names the alternative sibling (e.g. xae_open_solution) or explains the relationship, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Picks the instance holding solution_path when given" and "launch=true starts a new shell" imply selection behavior, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. xae_open_solution / xae_status, and no statement about what to do when no shell is running.

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