namesniper_watches

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the read-only list nature, details the return fields, slot usage, and API key requirement. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but covers the essential behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action, and organizes return details and usage guidance efficiently. No filler or redundant content, though the dense field list makes it slightly long.

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?

In the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned JSON fields, slot usage, and authentication requirement. It also points to the complementary unwatch tool, giving enough context for correct usage.

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 input schema already documents the sole parameter and states it is ignored/derived from the API key. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the high schema coverage makes this acceptable; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('List every handle the account is monitoring') with a defined resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like namesniper_watch and namesniper_unwatch.

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 explicit guidance to use a watch id with namesniper_unwatch for stopping monitoring, and notes the API key requirement. It does not explicitly contrast with check-type siblings, but the list context makes its purpose clear.

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