detach_dev_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The clarification that the process is NOT stopped is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after detaching (can logs still be fetched? does get_status still show it?), or whether detaching is reversible via re-attach.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and adds a critical clarifying parenthetical. Zero waste; every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The key semantic distinction from stop_dev_server is conveyed. However, given the sibling complexity (attach/start/stop in one family), a bit more context about the operational flow (e.g., that attach must precede detach, or what state results) would improve completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object), so there's nothing to document. Per the guidance, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop watching') with a clear resource ('an attached dev server'), and crucially clarifies that it does NOT stop the actual process. This provides distinction from the sibling stop_dev_server tool. However, the purpose could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting against stop_dev_server in the text itself.

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 implies the tool is for when the user wants to stop watching without terminating the process, and the sibling set includes both attach_to_dev_server and stop_dev_server which provides context. However, there's no explicit when/when-not guidance. The parenthetical does distinguish it from stop_dev_server, giving moderate usage context.

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