watch_events

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the call blocks for a bounded period, it only reports what is triggered during that window, and it must be run concurrently with an action that produces events. Defaults and caps (10s/120s, 100/1000 events) live in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then how to drive it, then where to find valid values. The final sentence about describe_ipc partially duplicates the schema text on the class and events fields, which is the only mild 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?

With an output schema present, the description is not obliged to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies the two things an agent could not infer: the need to trigger activity concurrently and the bounded listening window. The only omission is explicit routing away from the similarly named list_simulation_events.

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 100%, so every parameter including class, events, object, seconds and max_events is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the class/events examples and points at describe_ipc for valid names, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (listen to / return) and resource (Packet Tracer's live IPC events), with concrete scope: a bounded listening window and a sample of the event families captured (deviceAdded, console output, simulation steps, ARP/DHCP). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the similar-sounding sibling list_simulation_events, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear operating guidance: the tool must be paired with something that generates events, either another tool call in parallel or a manual action in Packet Tracer, and points to describe_ipc for enumerating valid classes/event names. It never states when not to use this versus list_simulation_events or call_ipc, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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