watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs all checks, saves results, diffs against previous runs, and shows regressions, recoveries, and schema drift. It does not mention side effects or auth needs, but the behavioral description is comprehensive for the tool's purpose.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the tool shows (regressions, recoveries, schema drift). It clarifies that a previous run is needed by mentioning 'since the last check' and 'previous run for the same target.' Complete for its 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters (command and args). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it checks a server and shows changes since last check, specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan' and 'diff_runs' by noting it runs all checks, saves results, and diffs against previous runs in one call.

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 says 'Use this to check a server and see what changed since the last check,' providing clear context. It implies a usage scenario but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. Still, the guidance is strong.

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