watch_check

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a one-shot operation, that it is based on the last check, and that unsupported target types are reported as skipped rather than silently treated as healthy. This is useful transparency, though it could go slightly further in describing the actual return shape or state it depends on.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence contributes an operational nuance end important caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a single critical caveat (docker-only), the description covers the essential domain. It lacks only details about the output/format of the restart report and what 'watched targets' means concretely, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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%, and the sole optional parameter server is already documented as 'Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted)'. The tool description does not add anything beyond this schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('run a one-shot restart check') and a specific resource ('watched targets'), and clarifies the result as 'restarts detected since the last check'. It also differentiates this from restart actions such as docker_restart by using 'check' rather than an action verb.

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 gives clear context and a concrete exclusion: only docker targets can be inspected, while systemd and pm2 targets are reported as skipped. This is strong usage guidance, though it stops short of naming alternative tools or explicitly saying when to choose a sibling instead.

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