watch_background_command

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

The word 'polls' is ambiguous—does it block, return immediately, or stream? There is no disclosure of side effects, termination behavior, or error handling. With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral traits but falls short.

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, efficient sentence of 12 words. It could be slightly expanded with parameter details without losing conciseness, but as is, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 no output schema or annotations and two parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the returned status format, how to stop polling, or handling of nonexistent commands. Sibling tools add context but the description itself is incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'name' is required but not described; 'lines' (default 80) is not mentioned. The agent receives no guidance on parameter semantics beyond the raw 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 clearly states it polls a background command and returns status plus recent log tail. The verb 'polls' and resource 'background command' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_background_command', though the name 'watch' implies ongoing polling.

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 such as 'check_background_command' (one-shot check) or 'start_background_command'. The description lacks context on appropriate use cases.

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