tv_watchdog_sample

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' (no mutations) and discloses persistence behavior: 'Persists only state transitions and never chart symbols, URLs, or account data.' This is a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the minimum. It could be enhanced by explaining what a 'health watchdog sample' entails or what triggers a state transition, but it still offers valuable transparency.

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: 'Run one read-only health watchdog sample. Persists only state transitions and never chart symbols, URLs, or account data.' (Technically two sentences, but extremely concise). Every clause adds relevant information without repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds critical behavioral context.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the core function and key behavioral constraints. It does not explain what the sample returns or how to interpret the result, but given the simplicity and the absence of parameters, this is not a critical gap. The description could be slightly more explicit about the output, but it remains functionally complete for invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies here, as there is nothing to add beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('health watchdog sample'), and a scope ('one', 'read-only'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tv_watchdog_start and tv_watchdog_stop by emphasizing 'sample' as a one-off action. This is a precise, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 implies usage context: using 'sample' suggests a one-off health check rather than continuous monitoring, which differentiates it from tv_watchdog_start. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5. The context is clear enough for an experienced agent to infer appropriate usage.

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