guild_watch_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the operation is read-only and 'machine-readable' but does not mention authentication, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral details. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the second sentence about being 'Free' is tangential and may confuse cost/credits semantics. It earns a middle score because it is short but not entirely focused.

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?

The description leaves out important operational context: response format, pagination, authentication, and parameter meaning. While the tool appears simple, an agent lacks enough detail to invoke it reliably without external knowledge.

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 schema has two parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain api_key or watch_id beyond the vague 'watch you provisioned.' An agent cannot determine what values to supply or where they come from.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and resource ('machine-readable change feed for a watch you provisioned'), making the primary purpose evident. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like guild_watch or guild_check, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 about when to choose this tool over the many sibling watch/check/search tools. The phrase 'for a watch you provisioned' implies a precondition but does not state when to use the feed versus alternatives.

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