watch_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It's a read-only list operation implied by the phrasing 'List configured watches', which is clear. It discloses what fields are returned (name, url, mode, last checked, last changed), providing useful behavioral context about the output even without an output schema. Being a no-arg read is self-evidently safe.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action (List) and immediately enumerates the output fields. Zero waste, every word contributes meaning. Perfectly sized for a zero-argument tool.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It names the operation and enumerates all output fields. There's no complexity requiring more. The only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at sorting/ordering or whether results differ from watch_scan output, but this is adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100% (there is nothing to document). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List configured watches' with specific fields enumerated (name, url, mode, last checked, last changed). Distinguishes from siblings since watch_add, watch_remove, watch_scan, and watch_diff are all actions while this is a list operation, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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 it's for viewing configured watches, and the sibling set makes the listing-vs-mutation contrast implicit. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it note that it's the read-only complement to watch_add/watch_remove. No exclusions or prerequisites given.

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