attach_dotnet_bridge

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the single annotation (destructiveHint: false). It explains that injection is automatic for both .NET Framework and CoreCLR, works only on an already-running process, and is needed for specific UI libraries. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with the action, then usage context, target apps, and limitations. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and only one annotation, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, prerequisites, target applications, and technical constraints. An agent can fully understand when and why to use this tool.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it provides sufficient context about the tool's operation without needing parameter details.

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 ('inject') and resource ('.NET bridge') with clear context ('CLR process owning the current session window'). It also states when to use it (after session creation when dotnetBridge was not set), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_session and attach_session.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this after creating a session... when dotnetBridge was NOT set'. Also states 'Only works on an already-running process — there is no launch-time injection path' and describes the target app types (WinForms/WPF with custom-drawn controls). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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