debuggerAttach

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. 'Attaches the debugger' gives no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what side effects occur, what happens if attachment fails, or what the expected response looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters that likely initiates debugging sessions, this is critically insufficient behavioral information.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification, from a pure conciseness perspective, there's zero wasted language. Every word ('Attaches the debugger') directly relates to the tool's function, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.

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 debugger attachment tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling debugger tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'attaching' means operationally, what happens after attachment, how this relates to other debugger operations, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (debuggingMode, debuggeeId, user, dynproDebugging). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters - it doesn't explain what debugging modes are available, what a debuggee represents, why user identification is needed, or when dynproDebugging should be enabled. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 'Attaches the debugger' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerAttach'. It doesn't specify what resource the debugger attaches to, what 'attaching' actually means operationally, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen, debuggerSetBreakpoints, or debuggerStep. The purpose is stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling debugger tools available (debuggerListen, debuggerSetBreakpoints, debuggerStep, debuggerVariables, etc.), there's no indication of whether this is an initialization step, a configuration action, or something that should precede or follow other debugger operations. No prerequisites, sequencing, or alternatives are mentioned.

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