Monitorar arquivos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and return value, but omits that this creates a persistent watch, whether events are queued, or that watch_stop should eventually be called. This is a significant gap for a stateful tool.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. However, it achieves brevity by omitting useful lifecycle and parameter context.

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 that starts an ongoing watch, with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain how the returned watch_id should be used, mention the recursive option, or relate the tool to watch_poll and watch_stop.

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 only 50%: path is documented, but recursive is not. The description adds no explanation of the recursive flag or how the path is resolved, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a concrete verb ('começa a observar'), identifies the resource as a file or folder in the workspace, and notes that it returns a watch_id. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like watch_poll and watch_stop.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use watch_start instead of watch_poll or watch_stop, nor are any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The intended workflow around the watcher lifecycle is left entirely implicit.

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