dolphin_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state (creating/cancelling watches, freezing/unfreezing memory) but says nothing about what a freeze does to a running emulator, whether actions are reversible, or how the timeoutMs default interacts with long-running watches. That is a real gap for a mutation 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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. It is arguably too terse for a tool with four actions and an untyped nested arguments object, but there is no wasted text.

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 four enum actions, a required nested arguments object with additionalProperties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool confidently. An agent would not know what to put in 'arguments' for a watch versus a freeze, or what a successful call returns.

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 0%, and the nested 'arguments' object accepts arbitrary properties, so the description needed to explain what each action expects. It only restates the four action names that the enum already provides and says nothing about the required arguments shape or timeout behavior. The opaque nested object is left entirely unexplained.

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 names four concrete operations with verbs and resources: create/cancel watches and freeze/unfreeze emulated memory. That distinguishes it from sibling tools like dolphin_memory and dolphin_variables, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to know what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over dolphin_memory, dolphin_variables, or any other sibling, nor any prerequisite or context for using watches versus freezes. The action names imply the four modes of use, but that is the schema's enum, not usage guidance. An agent gets no routing help.

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