attach_to_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'attach to a running process' without disclosing side effects (e.g., does it pause execution? What happens if process not found? Are permissions needed?). Parameters like 'stopOnEntry' hint at behavior but are not explained in description. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), it is slightly underspecified but still concise.

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?

The description omits placement in the debugging workflow. It does not mention that a debug session is required (sessionId is required), nor how this tool relates to siblings like 'create_debug_session' or 'start_debugging'. For a tool with many parameters and a specific role, more contextual information is needed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., sessionId vs processId) or when host/port are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attach to a running process for debugging'. It uses a specific verb ('attach') and resource ('running process'), and distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'create_debug_session' (creating vs attaching) and 'detach_from_process' (opposite).

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 (e.g., 'create_debug_session', 'start_debugging'). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring an existing debug session, and does not mention when to choose attach over other debugging tools.

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