check_watched

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool re-scans all watched repos and returns those with significant changes, providing the core behavior. However, it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or definition of 'significant change'.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Efficiently conveys the action, scope, and return value. Every sentence is necessary.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. Minor gaps: no definition of 'significant change', and no mention that repos must be previously watched. But overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter described). The description adds context that the email is the one used when watching repos, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema description.

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 the action ('Re-scan') and resource ('all watched repos'), and specifies the outcome ('check for score changes' and returns repos with significant changes). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_trust_score (single repo) and watch_repo (adding repos).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the action implies a batch check, there is no guidance on scenarios or exclusions. The usage is implied from sibling names but not articulated.

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