debugger_attach

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description should explain what is actually altered — e.g. that attaching halts the target, that stop_on_entry defaults to true, and what the timeout governs. None of that is disclosed; the single sentence only restates the mutation implied by the name.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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 destructive operation with nested option objects, an output schema, and two required parameters, the description omits session lifecycle context (how to close, how to continue after attach), the toolset_id requirement, and adapter choice. An agent could not invoke this correctly without reading the schema closely.

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 reported at 0% and the top-level properties (toolset_id, adapter, options, initial, timeout) carry no descriptions. The description mentions only the PID and breakpoints, leaving the required toolset_id, the adapter default of lldb-dap, and the timeout semantics entirely unexplained.

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 and object ('Attach to an explicit local PID') plus a secondary function ('configure initial breakpoints'), which lets an agent distinguish it from debugger_launch. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Explicit local PID' implies the target process must already exist, which implicitly separates it from debugger_launch, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisite (toolset_id, adapter selection, ptrace permissions), and no mention of debugger_close as the follow-up.

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