edb_attach_process

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

Annotations provide limited behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). The description adds that the process is paused on attach, which is helpful, but does not disclose side effects or error conditions. More transparency could be added.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a clear args and returns section. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple attach tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential behavior and return value. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for further return details. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., process must exist).

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?

Despite schema coverage being 0%, the description explains the params argument and the pid field with a clear 'Process ID to attach to' description, adding value beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 action ('Attach the debugger'), the resource ('an already-running process'), and the method ('by PID'). It also distinguishes from siblings like edb_detach_process and edb_run.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include many process control tools, but no comparative context is provided.

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