List watchers

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

Annotations already mark this as safe/read-only/idempotent, and the description adds substantial extra behavior: permission-dependent name withholding, watchersVisible=false, the empty-list ambiguity, and a data-trust warning about display names. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the permission caveat, and the security warning. Information is front-loaded 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?

For a read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the permission precondition, the ambiguous-empty-result case, and a safety note. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents, but it does not need to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the accounts watching an issue', then adds the distinguishing details of watch count and whether the server's own account is included. This clearly separates it from sibling add/remove watcher tools.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool is read-only, requires the 'View voters and watchers' permission for full results, and empty lists have a specific meaning when permission is missing. It does not explicitly name add_watcher/remove_watcher as alternatives, so it stops short of 5.

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