attach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait—'wait for it to settle'—but that phrase is vague and does not explain what settling means, how long the wait is, whether the operation blocks, or what side effects attaching may have. This is insufficient behavioral transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the waiting behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves key operational details unexplained: what 'settle' means, timeout expectations, failure behavior, and whether attaching affects the app's state. With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently in varied scenarios.

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 input schema only defines url as a required string with no description. The tool description adds useful meaning by indicating the url refers to an already-running local or deployed app. However, it does not specify URL format, protocol, or how the url is used, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Open'), identifies the resource ('an app that is already running'), and scopes it by location ('at `url`'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling launch_app by explicitly stating the app is already running, so an agent can tell attach from a launch operation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an app is already running and needs to be opened/attached to. However, it never names the alternative launch_app or explicitly says 'use launch_app if the app is not running,' leaving the routing decision to inference rather than direct guidance.

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