watch_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that each entry includes its kind and last recorded check result, but says nothing about ordering, empty state, or whether the 'last check' may be stale.

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-formed sentence that front-loads the action and packs the return-field hint with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple, annotation-backed read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the action and the shape of the results. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, freshness of 'last check'), which are not essential to calling it correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the local-versus-remote behavior. The description adds nothing about the server parameter, so the baseline 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?

A specific verb ('List') plus a clear resource ('targets being watched') and supplementary detail on the returned fields ('kind' and 'last check recorded'). An agent can distinguish it from watch_add/watch_remove/watch_check, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a list operation, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over watch_check (which presumably performs a check) or watch_history. The agent must infer the role from the name.

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