resume_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only gestures at traits via unexplained jargon: 'bounded recovery' and 'ID deduplication' hint that replay is limited and duplicate items are filtered, but no bounds, error behavior, idempotency, or resulting state change is disclosed. Nothing tells the agent what happens if the watch is already running or if the watch_id does not exist.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It loses a point only because the compact phrasing spends its words on unexplained jargon rather than on information the agent can act on.

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?

This is a state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, so the description should do more work. Key facts are missing: preconditions, failure modes, whether resumption is idempotent, and what 'bounded recovery' or 'ID deduplication' concretely mean for the caller.

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 single parameter watch_id is not mentioned in the description at all. The name is self-explanatory enough to prevent total failure, but the description adds no meaning such as required watch state, expected errors, or what the integer identifies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resume') against the resource implied by the watch family, and the antonym relationship with sibling pause_watch makes the intent readable. The object of the verb is 'scans' rather than 'a watch', which adds slight ambiguity, but an agent can still tell what operation this performs.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that the watch must currently be paused, and no naming of alternatives (e.g. create_watch or update_watch for cases where no paused watch exists). The agent must infer the precondition from the tool name alone.

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