set_auto_attach

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Configure' without explaining side effects, persistence, whether prior settings are overwritten, or any dependency on a running debugger. The list of typical values is useful but does not reveal the operation's behavior.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a value list. It is efficient with no filler words, though the enumerated list adds a little length without being verbose.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for safe invocation. It omits important context such as whether the setting replaces existing values, how to disable auto-attach, and what the call returns. The typical values help but do not fill the behavioral and contextual gaps.

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 offers a list of typical values (Client, ManagedClient, Server, etc.), which gives real guidance on expected string content. However, it doesn't clarify whether these are exhaustive, case-sensitive, or how to clear/reset the auto-attach list, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Configure RDBG auto-attach target types.' It clearly conveys what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like attach_targets, though the scoped resource makes it fairly distinguishable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with siblings such as attach_targets or list_debug_targets. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and brief description.

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