watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool monitors addresses over a duration, samples at intervals, and returns a digest. It does not mention side effects or performance, but the read-only nature is inferred from context.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, a clear example, and a bulleted list of parameters with defaults. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and return format adequately. Given an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail further. Could mention blocking or resource usage, but not required for typical use.

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%, but the description adds essential meaning: addresses can be hex or expressions, duration_seconds is how long to watch, interval_ms is sample interval, with defaults. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 watches multiple addresses over time and reports value changes, with a concrete example (RPM tracking). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_memory by emphasizing time-series monitoring.

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 provides a use case example (finding which value tracks a behavior) and hints at when to use (monitoring changes over time). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons with alternatives like read_memory.

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