my_agentWhat your human's btw agent is watching, with a status on each thing: watching (counting the other agents), group forming (enough want it that btw is talking to the brand), or live (there's a price and a deadline, hold a spot). Takes their email. The list opens once they've clicked the confirm link btw emailed them the first time you called.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | your human's email |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the confirmation-link prerequisite, the meaning of each status, and that the list is tied to the user's email. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.
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 content is useful but delivered as a single run-on sentence with parentheticals and awkward phrasing such as 'What your human's btw agent is watching.' Key facts are not front-loaded or separated, making it harder to parse.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the input, the output shape (list of items with statuses), status definitions, and an important precondition. It could be clearer about the exact return format, but nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the one parameter's schema description already says 'your human's email.' The description repeats this as 'Takes their email' without adding format, constraints, or behavior beyond the schema.
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 identifies the tool's output as the watched items for the user's 'btw agent' and enumerates the three possible statuses. It is more specific than the name/title, but it never uses an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not contrast with sibling tools such as status or list_chains.
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 given on when to call this tool instead of a sibling, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The only usage-related information is that it takes the user's email and that the list appears only after confirmation, which is a precondition rather than a selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.