attach_pid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It includes the return structure but does not disclose potential failure modes, side effects, or permissions requirements. The tool appears simple, but more context on error behavior would improve transparency.

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 concise, with a clear structure: a one-sentence summary, followed by parameter definitions in bullet style, and a return format block. No redundant or missing information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description provides a complete enough picture: it explains parameters and return format. However, it omits details on when the tool might fail (e.g., invalid PID, missing permissions) which could be important for an agent. Still, it covers the essential context.

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 0% coverage (only titles and types), so the description's parameter explanations add significant meaning. It clarifies 'session' as session id, 'pid' as host PID, and 'device_id' as optional with empty meaning first available. This goes beyond schema to provide practical semantics.

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 action ('attach'), resource ('running process'), and method ('by host PID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_session' which creates a new session, and 'script_load' which loads a script. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies use when attaching to a process by PID, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The context is clear but lacks strategic decision support.

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