attach

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the native bridge must independently approve the target before access, which conveys the tool's non-guaranteed, approval-dependent nature. This is useful context not captured by the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint flags. It does not contradict the annotations, and adds meaningful behavioral detail.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every word adds value, and the key information (request, approval) is immediately present. It is an excellent example of conciseness without under-specification.

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 low complexity (two params, simple action) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and approval requirement. However, it lacks context on what happens after successful approval, how to interpret results, and when exactly to issue this request in a broader workflow. These gaps are notable but not severe.

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?

The parameter names 'pid' and 'authorizationReason' are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning for these fields. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by clarifying the parameters' roles, which it fails to do. An agent must infer the semantics solely from the names and constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'Request' and the resource 'attachment', making it clear the tool initiates an attach operation. The scope is slightly vague (what target?) but the schema's 'pid' property clarifies that it attaches to a process. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on memory operations or edits.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'before access' implies it is a prerequisite for other operations, but it does not name specific sibling tools or describe the workflow. There are no exclusions or comparison with other attach-like tools.

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