debuggerAttach

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that attachment holds the process and that abandoning it can leave a work process frozen. It gives concrete cleanup paths (debuggerStep terminate or listener deletion).

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 compact sentences, direct start with the action and immediate caveat. No filler; the cleanup warning is necessary context.

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 tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description supplies the missing lifecycle context: attach after listen, read state after attach, and release via step/terminate or listener delete. Enough for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. Description doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema fields.

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?

Description names a specific verb, attach, and resource, the process stopped at a breakpoint reported by debuggerListen. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger tools by explicitly referencing the listener and later stack/variable reads.

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 tells exactly when to use: after debuggerListen, before stack/variables are meaningful. It also says when serving as cleanup alternative: use debuggerStep with terminate or delete the listener.

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