look

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read operation and the artefact list adds useful context, but the description does not state permissions, side effects, error behavior, or result format.

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 front-loaded sentence with an efficient inline list. It wastes little space, though the dense enumeration could be slightly clearer for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more. It explains the 'what' values but does not explain watch_id semantics, return behavior, or invocation context needed for a fully self-contained tool definition.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully defines the accepted forms for 'what' (sheet:N, timeline:N, view:N, shot:N, page:N, colour), but it leaves 'watch_id' and the meaning of 'N' unexplained.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Show an artefact of a watch.' It further enumerates the artefact types (sheet, timeline, view, shot, page, colour), so the agent can understand the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate 'look' from similar siblings such as frame, image, images, or zoom.

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 lists valid artefact types but provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. With many visually overlapping siblings, an agent receives no help deciding when 'look' is the right tool versus image, frame, or zoom.

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