Inject into running Electron app

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

The description discloses the injection action (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), return values (ok, session_id, transport, windows), and possible errors. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence with additional notes on returns and errors. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers return format, error conditions, and the alternative tool. For a tool of moderate complexity, it provides sufficient contextual completeness.

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% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by specifying that the tool is for processes without debug flags, which enhances the meaning of the pid parameter. A score of 4 reflects this extra value.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: attaching to a running Electron process that was NOT started with a debug flag by injecting Node inspector. It differentiates from sibling tools like electron_attach, which is for processes already exposing a debug endpoint.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (process not started with debug flag) and when not to (use electron_attach instead). It also provides guidance on retry behavior for the INJECT_FAILED error.

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