debuggerAttach

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

With no annotations and no description of side effects, the tool's behavior is entirely undisclosed. For a mutating action like attaching a debugger, the description fails to mention whether it requires an active session, whether it suspends execution, or what the outcome is. This is a major transparency gap.

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, making it front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is under-specified; it lacks necessary context and structure for a tool with 4 parameters, so it is not effectively concise in the sense of conveying complete meaning.

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?

The tool is a debugger operation with side effects, but the description gives no information about required prior state, the effect on the debuggee, or how to revert. There is no output schema or annotations to fill the gap. The description is grossly incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions are terse (e.g., 'The debugging mode.'), but they are present and complete. The tool description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific action ('Attaches the debugger') and the resource (debugger), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like debuggerStep or debuggerSetBreakpoints. However, it lacks scope details such as what 'attach' implies or the target context, so it does not fully distinguish from related tools like debuggerListen.

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 alternatives. Given the large number of debugger-related sibling tools, the description offers no context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would choose 'debuggerAttach' over others.

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