watcher_reconcile_now

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states 'updates the ledger' (a mutation) and 'does not terminate anything' (non-destructive). This provides behavioral clarity beyond the tool name. However, it omits details like rate limits, error behavior, or required permissions.

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 a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it could include more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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, optional parameters, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers core purpose and safety (non-destructive). However, it lacks parameter explanations and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.

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%; the description does not mention either parameter ('min_age_minutes' or 'limit'). Their purpose and effect remain entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to select appropriate values.

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 action ('force'), the resource ('watcher reconciliation snapshot'), and timing ('now'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'watcher_status', but does not elaborate on what 'reconciliation snapshot' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., 'managed_reconcile', 'auto_cleanup_dryrun'). It does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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