Debugger: Detach

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the side effect of releasing the 8081 socket and that the running channel continues executing. It also restates idempotency in operational terms ('no-op if not attached'), reinforcing the idempotentHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the key idempotency and execution-continuation details are packed efficiently into the remaining sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers the operation's side effects and no-op behavior. The lack of an output schema is not a concern at this complexity, though the description does not specify the return value on success.

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 single optional device parameter is fully described in the schema (IP/serial, must match a connected Dev Studio tab, omit for focused tab), so the description carries little parameter burden. The description only ties the session to a device generically. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 resource: 'Close the debug session for a device', and adds the mechanism 'releases the 8081 control socket.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_attach and debugger_status by naming the exact action.

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 gives clear context: it is a teardown/cleanup operation, idempotent, and safe to call when not attached. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as debugger_attach, but the action is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.

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