tv_watchdog_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It appropriately discloses that the tool is read-only, which is crucial safety information, and adds context about sample coalescing and state-only persistence. This goes beyond a bare 'start' command and helps the agent understand expected behavior.

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 extremely concise and efficient—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds essential behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the absence of an output schema, and the presence of related sibling tools, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, that it's safe (read-only), and how it behaves (coalescing, state transitions). No critical information is missing for correct 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 schema description covers the single parameter (interval_ms) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics (range, default, and purpose).

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 ('Start') and the specific resource ('the read-only in-process health watchdog'), which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like tv_watchdog_stop, tv_watchdog_status, tv_watchdog_sample, and tv_watchdog_history. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 when to use the tool (to start the watchdog) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like tv_health_check or provide scenarios for when to use vs. not use. It lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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