watch

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotent=false, so the agent knows this tool performs writes. The description usefully adds that mutations happen through policy-driven automatic handling of low-risk questionnaires, and that dryRun is a preview. It does not say which actions the tool may take, whether they can be undone, or what limits apply beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the preview flag. Nothing is wasted, but the compactness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being cleanly concise.

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 destructive, multi-mode tool with five parameters, a nested policy object, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the action modes, the policy semantics, the timing thresholds, or what the tool 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 there are 5 parameters, including a nested policy object with mode, riskCeiling, allowSessions, minIdleSeconds, and maxActionsPerTick. The description explains only dryRun; it leaves action, policy, stalledMinutes, and finishedMinutes unexplained. This is a significant gap that the description does not compensate for.

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 calls this a 'periodic inspection' that compares snapshots to produce events, and can auto-handle low-risk questionnaires. That is a concrete verb and object that an agent can understand. However, it only describes the 'tick' behavior, while the schema's 'action' enum also includes status, reset, and config, which the description does not explain. It also does not point to sibling tools such as minimax_events or minimax_pending, which cover adjacent functionality, so the agent cannot easily tell which tool to choose.

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 periodic use and gives one useful cue, that dryRun=true is preview-only. It does not say when to use this tool instead of siblings like minimax_auto_resume or minimax_pending, nor when not to use it. The guidance that does exist is tied only to the dry-run flag.

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