debug_attach

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a persistent session ID is returned, but omits material behavioral traits such as attaching typically suspending the target process, requiring OS-level permissions, and creating a session used by sibling debug_* tools. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a debugger attach operation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, target, and return value with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides the essential call information: what to attach to and what will come back. It lacks behavioral side-effect details, but those are already penalized under behavioral transparency; the tool is still invokable correctly with the information given.

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%: the only parameter, 'pid', is fully documented as 'Process ID to attach to'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Attach'), a specific resource ('the radare2 debugger to a running process by PID'), and a clear outcome ('return a persistent session ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like debug_launch and debug_detach without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 phrase 'running process by PID' clearly signals the intended use case for already-running processes, contrasting implicitly with debug_launch for starting processes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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