watch.jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a useful behavioral detail—that progress is shared with the web—and the verb 'list' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose auth requirements, limits, ordering, or whether any side effects 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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource first, then adds the web-sharing behavior, which is efficient and clear.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and an important behavioral trait. It is mostly complete, but it could better clarify the distinction from similar sibling tools like watch.history, watch.list, and watch.job.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no parameter documentation and the description cannot add much parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 the verb '列出' (list) and the resource '本地监控服务的最近任务' (recent jobs of local monitoring service), and adds the web-sharing context. The plural 'jobs' distinguishes it somewhat from 'watch.job', but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like watch.history or watch.list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as watch.history, watch.list, and watch.job, the description gives no condition for choosing this one, only an implicit sense that it is for listing recent jobs.

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