xae_attach

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

The annotations already establish that this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: attaching changes the target for every xae_* tool, mismatch is flagged against xae.solution_path, ambiguous shells are refused, and all xae_* tools refuse after the solution is closed until it is reopened.

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 front-loaded with the core attach behavior and every clause carries operational meaning, but the first sentence is a dense run-on with nested parentheticals that make the conditions hard to parse. It would benefit from clearer structure or bullets even though it is not padded with fluff.

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?

For a stateful attach tool with an output schema, it covers the important lifecycle behavior: default solution selection, mismatch signaling, ambiguous refusal, launch alternative, and the effect of closing the solution. The main remaining gap is the unexplained progid parameter, but the overall attachment model is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain solution_path semantics and the launch=true behavior, but progid is not mentioned at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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?

It names a specific verb, attach, and a precise resource, the running XAE shell / Visual Studio instance via the Running Object Table that has a given solution. The contrast with opening a solution is implicit in 'running shell' and is clear enough for an agent to distinguish this from xae_open_solution.

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?

It specifies the selection logic explicitly: use the provided solution_path when given, otherwise fall back to xae.solution_path. It also states refusal conditions for no open shell and ambiguous multiple-shell cases, and names launch=true as the alternative when no shell has the solution open.

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