watch

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (tool may cause changes) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the window remains open for real-time progress, attempts upgrades, and enforces a minimum interval. This matches and extends annotation information. No contradiction.

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 consists of four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action, stating use case, explaining behavior, and adding a constraint. It is concise with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and rate-limiting constraint. Annotations are also provided. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter is interval_minutes, which the schema already describes with default and minimum values. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens a terminal window to monitor pending stamps and attempt due upgrades. It uses specific verbs ('monitors', 'attempts') and resource ('pending stamps', 'due upgrades'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_pending (which only lists) and upgrade_timestamp (which upgrades a single timestamp).

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 says it's 'useful for long-running monitoring sessions after stamping' and mentions the minimum interval to avoid hammering OTS calendars. It implies when to use (after stamping) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. The context of siblings provides some guidance, but direct exclusion is missing.

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