attach_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the operation and the input source; it does not describe side effects, whether existing attachments are replaced, failure modes, or how the debugger session state changes. For an action that modifies debugger state, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the key semantic information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: an agent knows what input to provide and where to obtain it. However, it omits contextual details such as requiring an active debugger connection, expected behavior, and any constraints on when attachment is valid.

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 compensate. It does add useful meaning by identifying targetIds as the IDs returned by list_debug_targets, but it does not explain valid values, cardinality expectations beyond the schema's minItems, or how the IDs are used during attachment.

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 ('attach') and identifies the object ('target IDs returned by list_debug_targets'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from detach_targets and other debugger sibling tools, though it does not explicitly state that the targets are attached to the active debugger session.

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 phrase 'returned by list_debug_targets' implies a clear source for the IDs and suggests basic sequencing after listing debug targets. However, it does not state prerequisites such as having a connected debugger, when to use this over other sibling tools, or what to do if attachment fails.

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