watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: runs all checks, saves results, diffs against previous run, and shows regressions/recoveries/drift. It omits edge cases (e.g., no previous run) but is fairly transparent about the diff and output.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then expanding on process and output. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions what the output shows (regressions, recoveries, schema drift) but lacks specifics on format or edge cases. The disconnect between parameters and description reduces completeness, but the core flow is adequately covered for a tool with this complexity.

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 input schema describes 'command' and 'args' for launching an MCP server, but the tool description is about checking a server and diffing results. The description does not explain how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, adding confusion instead of meaning. Schema coverage is 100% but description adds no value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'check a server and see what changed since the last check.' It specifies the verb (check/see changes) and resource (server), and differentiates from sibling tools like 'check_server' by emphasizing the diffing and change tracking aspect.

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 when to use this tool: for monitoring changes over time. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context suggests it is for repeated checks with diffing, providing clear usage context without naming alternatives.

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