list_file_watches

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read via 'List' and filters to 'active' watchers, which is useful. However, it says nothing about the return shape (what a watcher record contains), ordering, or whether inactive/removed watches could ever appear, leaving gaps for a no-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a trivial listing tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 0-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete but omits what a returned watcher looks like (path, ID, events). An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate the output structure from the description alone.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active file system watchers'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools add_file_watch and remove_file_watch. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, but the read-only listing purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus add_file_watch/remove_file_watch, nor any mention of prerequisites. The word 'active' hints at scope (excluding inactive watches), but that is left implicit rather than stated as a usage rule.

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