debuggerAttach

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits, side effects, or changes to debugging state. The tool does not explain what 'attaching' means or its implications.

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 very concise (one sentence) but does not earn its place as it adds almost no value beyond the tool name. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, side effects, or how the parameters interact. The agent would lack critical context for correct 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?

While the schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It fails to explain how parameters like 'debuggingMode' or 'dynproDebugging' affect behavior.

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' clearly states the action and resource, but it lacks specificity about what is being attached to (debuggee) and context among sibling debugger tools. However, it's not a tautology and provides a basic purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other debugger tools (e.g., debuggerStep, debuggerSetBreakpoints). The description does not mention prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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