LLDB_ATTACH

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting critical details such as whether the process is paused upon attach, any permissions needed, or if the operation is reversible. This lack of transparency could lead to unexpected side effects.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action. However, it might be too brief, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 lack of output schema and the fact that this tool modifies debugging state, the description should explain what happens after a successful attach (e.g., process stops, session updates, ability to set breakpoints). It does not mention side effects or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely use this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for sessionId and pid. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high; the description does not improve or worsen it.

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 'Attach to a running process' clearly identifies the action (attach) and target (running process), distinguishing it from sibling tools like LLDB_RUN (launch new process) and LLDB_LOAD_CORE (debug core dump). However, it could be more precise by indicating that it requires a PID and session ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not explain that this tool is for attaching to an existing process as opposed to launching a new one (LLDB_RUN) or loading a core dump (LLDB_LOAD_CORE). Agents are left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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