guild_watch

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description discloses important behaviors: provisioning is free, calls are idempotent by caller/endpoint, and recheck cycles are only billed when they run. This gives a clear picture of side effects and cost implications.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful behavioral notes and an example. Some marketing-like phrasing such as 'no sales call' adds mild noise but does not significantly hurt clarity.

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 simple provisioning tool, the description covers what it creates, cost semantics, idempotency, and where to consume results. It does not describe the output shape, but an output schema exists, so that omission is acceptable.

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 descriptions are entirely absent and the description does not explain each parameter. It implies url and api_key through the example and interval_seconds through 'recheck cycle,' but it does not define what api_key authenticates or precisely how interval_seconds controls behavior.

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?

Clearly states the tool self-provisions continuous endpoint monitoring, identifying the specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from the related guild_watch_feed by directing change-feed consumers to that sibling.

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?

Provides practical guidance on cost and idempotency, and mentions the companion feed tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with one-off check tools like guild_check or explain when continuous monitoring should be preferred.

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