watch_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says the operation writes the list, does not start watching anything, requires a separately installed supervisor, and returns added=false for duplicates instead of throwing an error. This is exemplary behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then uses two short sentences to convey critical side effects and duplicate behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the key operational caveats: list writes, no immediate watching, supervisor requirement, and duplicate behavior. It does not fully describe the success response shape, but the duplicate note implies an added boolean, which is enough for an agent to interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the meaning of kind by listing docker, systemd, and pm2, but it does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Docker container, systemd unit, or PM2 app to the watch list.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_remove, watch_check, and watch_list, and it mentions the three supported kinds explicitly.

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 makes the tool's core use case obvious (adding an item to the watch list) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like watch_remove for deletions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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