tv_watchdog_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only adds the qualifier 'privacy-safe' without explaining what that means, what the status contains, or whether any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. Every word adds value, especially 'privacy-safe' which hints at an important non-obvious property.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but leaves key details unresolved: what 'status' includes, what a 'sample' represents, and how this relates to other watchdog tools. This is particularly relevant due to the absence of annotations and output schema.

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, so the schema completely covers the input interface. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details, and it does not.

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 specifies the action 'Return' and the resources 'watchdog runtime status' and 'latest privacy-safe sample', clearly identifying it as a status/sample retrieval tool. It is semantically distinct from sibling tools like tv_watchdog_start/stop, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tv_watchdog_sample.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tv_watchdog_sample, tv_health_check, or tv_watchdog_history. The description is purely declarative and lacks use-case context or exclusions.

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