detach_from_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys the core behavioral distinction from a terminal action, but does not disclose other effects like breakpoint persistence, session state changes, or required permissions.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It defines the purpose and the key behavioral trait (non-termination). A brief mention of the sessionId's role could enhance it, but not necessary.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal new info beyond the schema, merely echoing the default behavior of the 'terminateProcess' parameter. Since schema coverage is high, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Detach'), the target ('the debugged process'), and a crucial qualifier ('without terminating it'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'close_debug_session' or 'terminate' operations.

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 implies usage when you want to end debugging while keeping the process alive, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_debug_session' or 'pause_execution'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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