logicstamp_watch_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses internal behavior: reads .logicstamp/context_watch-status.json, verifies process running, describes watch features (incremental rebuilds, change detection, debouncing, optional log file), strict watch mode detection, and that tools handle race conditions internally.

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 front-loaded with a critical warning and structured with sections, but it is verbose and repetitive (e.g., multiple mentions of not using sleep). Some sentences could be consolidated without losing meaning.

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 fully explains what the tool returns (status info). It covers workflow integration, prerequisites, edge cases (strict watch, log file requirement), and internal behavior, making it complete for the tool's role in a set of sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the contextual use of includeRecentLogs (to see recent regeneration events) and logLimit (maximum entries), and emphasizes the requirement for projectPath. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 checks if watch mode is active, and provides explicit instructions on workflow integration with sibling tools like refresh_snapshot, list_bundles, and read_bundle. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly states to call this first before any other LogicStamp tool, and provides detailed conditional guidance: if active, skip refresh_snapshot; if inactive, call it. It also warns against using sleep() delays, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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