gdb_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Attach to a running process' implies a mutation (attaching for debugging), but it doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., pausing the process), or error conditions. For a tool that likely alters process state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity (a debugging tool with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens after attachment, return values, or error handling. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (pid and sessionId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which applies here.

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 'Attach to a running process' clearly states the action (attach) and target (running process), which is adequate. However, it lacks specificity about what 'attach' means in the GDB context (e.g., debugging control) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'gdb_start' (which might start a new process). This makes it vague compared to higher-scoring examples.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active GDB session or process), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'gdb_load' (for loading executables) or 'gdb_start' (for starting processes). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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