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' implies a state-changing operation that likely initiates debugging, but it doesn't describe what happens upon attachment (e.g., does it pause execution, start logging, require specific permissions?), potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 just two words ('Attaches the debugger.'), with no wasted verbiage. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail. In terms of structure and efficiency, it earns full marks for conciseness.

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 complexity of a debugger attachment tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, usage context, or what to expect upon invocation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how and when to use it effectively. This is a mutation-like tool with minimal guidance.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., debuggingMode, debuggeeId, user, dynproDebugging). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as what debugging modes are available, how to obtain a debuggeeId, or what 'user' refers to. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource the debugger attaches to, what the attachment enables, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen, debuggerSetBreakpoints, or debuggerStep. The purpose is stated but lacks differentiation and detail.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple debugger-related sibling tools (e.g., debuggerListen, debuggerSetBreakpoints, debuggerStep), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for initial attachment, ongoing debugging, or specific scenarios. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice are mentioned.

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