dsh_observe

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

The annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds deprecation/compatibility context and indicates that the intended operation is covered by dsh_wait plus dsh_tail, which is behavior that annotations cannot express.

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?

Both sentences are short and front-loaded, and there is no wasted wording. It loses a point because the description is under-specified rather than merely concise, especially around what the compatibility alias does and how its parameters behave.

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 compatibility-only alias, the description provides adequate routing and safety context. However, because there is no output schema and the description never states what the call returns or how cursor/wait semantics behave, the overall picture is incomplete for an agent that actually needs to invoke this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate at all, saying nothing about taskId, afterCursor, or waitSeconds. An agent must infer the meaning of all three parameters from bare names, patterns, defaults, and constraints, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 identifies dsh_observe as a 'compatibility observation alias' and points to dsh_wait/dsh_tail, so an agent knows roughly where it belongs. However, it never states what the observation actually does, what resource it targets, or what kind of result the agent should expect, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

"Prefer dsh_wait plus dsh_tail task cursors" is an explicit routing instruction with named alternatives, which is genuinely useful. What is missing is the corresponding 'when not to use' and 'when it is acceptable to use this compatibility alias' guidance, though 'compatibility' provides part of that context.

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