watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose stateful behavior: watching the folder, detecting the XML, and diffing against the last seen one. However, it does not explain the side effects or lifecycle semantics of the four actions, such as what watch_start begins, what watch_status reports, or what watch_pull returns.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the workflow value, then states the mechanism, then the companion tool, then the action list. The phrase 'Close the round-trip' is slightly jargon-heavy, but each sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 multi-action dispatcher with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain each action's individual contract. It does not: watch_start, watch_status, and watch_stop are only named, not described, and there is no indication of return values, state persistence, or prerequisites beyond the general workflow pairing with deliver.push_to_fcp.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the action enum values but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's own 'Which operation to run' and the args example. It does not clarify which arguments each action requires.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Watch the Final Cut Pro export folder, detect the XML the moment it lands, and diff it against the last one seen.' This makes the tool's core function unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like deliver.push_to_fcp by framing it as the feedback step in a round-trip workflow.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Pair with deliver.push_to_fcp for a full loop: push in, edit, Cmd-E, watch_pull.' This tells the agent when in the process the tool belongs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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