watch_log_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time error detection' which implies ongoing monitoring, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this starts a background process, how errors are reported, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on tool invocation. This leaves significant gaps for a monitoring tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a stream, status, or error messages), how long monitoring persists, or interaction with sibling tools like 'stop_watching'. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('filePath' and 'pollInterval'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Start monitoring') and resource ('a log file'), and specifies the goal ('for real-time error detection'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'list_watched_files' or 'stop_watching', which prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_log', 'get_recent_errors', or 'quick_scan'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent with insufficient direction for tool selection.

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