debuggerAttach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Attaches the debugger' implies a state-changing operation that likely initiates debugging, but it doesn't describe what happens upon attachment (e.g., whether it pauses execution, starts monitoring, or requires specific permissions), potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that appears to control debugging sessions.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Attaches the debugger.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. In terms of structure and economy of language, it earns full marks for being direct and avoiding redundancy.

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 complexity of a debugger attachment tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of behavioral and contextual information makes this description insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (debuggingMode, debuggeeId, user, dynproDebugging). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what values debuggingMode accepts, what debuggeeId refers to, or how user authentication works. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Attaches the debugger' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerAttach' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource the debugger attaches to, what the outcome is, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen or debuggerSetBreakpoints. While the verb 'attaches' is clear, the lack of resource and differentiation makes this minimally informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debuggee), exclusions, or relationships to other debugger tools in the sibling list. Without any context about appropriate scenarios or comparisons to tools like debuggerListen or debuggerStep, the agent has no basis for making an informed selection.

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