cst_start_dialog_watcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it operates as a background thread, it logs every dialog it dismisses, and it requires explicit stopping via a sibling 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?

The description is efficiently structured. The first sentence defines the function, and the second sentence provides the crucial context, justification, and method for cleanup without being 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?

Given that this is a zero-parameter tool, it is maximally complete. It covers 'what' it does, 'why' it is needed, and 'how' to manage its lifecycle via related functions.

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?

Since the parameter count is zero, the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for parameter description quality (4) applies, as no input parameters needed explaining.

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 that the tool starts a background thread to detect and dismiss CST dialog windows. It successfully distinguishes this function from other simulation tools by referencing the specific paired function, cst_stop_dialog_watcher.

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?

It provides explicit usage context, stating it is essential for 'long-running operations like optimization loops' where dialog blockage is a known issue. It strongly implies the necessary lifecycle by referencing the stopping command.

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