dbgprobe.svd.attach

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions enabling named register reads/writes, field-level access, auto-decode on mem.read, and re-attach behavior. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid file), required authentication, or rate limits. The core behavior is clear but could be more detailed.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds key capabilities and re-attach behavior. No redundant information. The critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (file parsing and session attachment) and absence of output schema, the description covers the essential effects. It explains what the tool enables and how re-attachment works. However, it does not mention that the session must be active and connected, which is a minor gap. Sibling tools indicate many SVD operations that depend on this attachment.

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 50%: 'path' is described, 'session_id' is not. The description adds context by explaining that attaching an SVD enables register operations, which clarifies the purpose of the parameters. However, 'session_id' is only implied by 'attach it to a session'. More explicit param descriptions would improve this dimension.

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 verb 'Parse and attach' and the resource 'SVD file'. It explains the enabling of register reads/writes and field-level access, which distinguishes it from other svd.* tools that operate after attachment. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 that this tool should be used before other SVD operations like svd.read, svd.write, etc., by stating it enables them. It also notes re-attaching replaces previous SVD. However, it does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., session must exist) or when not to use it. No explicit alternative is needed as there is only one SVD attachment tool.

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