watch_tokenpull

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

Discloses key behaviors: one poll per call, no blocking/looping, preview-only by default, and rate-limited submission. Annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and description adds context beyond annotations without 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?

Two sentences with main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but covers necessary details. Could be slightly more concise but overall effective.

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 sibling tools and complexity, the description covers main functionality, return value (cascade), and submission behavior. Output schema exists, so return details are handled. Slightly incomplete on exact return structure but sufficient with schema.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by explaining submit requires enrollment, interval_s is advisory and echoed, and default window is 7d. Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description enriches understanding.

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 pulls local token logs and returns the current cascade for the watched window. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it never blocks or loops, and contrasts with submit-only variants like tokenpull_submit.

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?

Provides guidance to re-call at desired cadence, explains that interval_s is advisory, and clarifies submit requires enrollment with rate limiting. Lacks explicit comparison to siblings like tokenpull_compare.

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