set_watch_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that results are automatically written to the file on prompt.completed, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the file is overwritten or appended, nor the required permissions or error handling.

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 sentence in Chinese, concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every word provides value, and there is no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values, which it does not. It adequately describes the setup behavior but lacks details on success/failure outcomes or side effects. It is moderately complete for a simple setter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the 'path' parameter as an absolute path with an example. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('设置' - set) and a clear resource ('监听结果文件路径' - watch result file path). It also explains the effect (automatic writing on prompt.completed), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_watch_result' which are getters.

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 provides clear context: use it to set the path for automatic writing after prompt.completed. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context implies it should be used before watching, and siblings like 'get_watch_result' suggest alternatives for reading.

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