List Watch Changes

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it writes nothing, cannot suppress or double-fire a delivery, returns metadata only, never section text, and covers the entire captured history. This gives an agent a solid understanding of side effects and scope.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds scope, safety, and paging guidance in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's complexity with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers key needed context: what is returned, the metadata-only guarantee, history scope, safety, and cursor-based pagination. It does not detail every parameter, but the rich schema descriptions fill that gap.

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 high at 86%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the paging pattern with sinceId and the returned cursor, but does not add much semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 lists what a watched source added, amended, or removed, with specific fields and ordering. It also distinguishes itself from related watch/section tools by emphasizing metadata only and never section text.

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 gives strong usage context: it is safe to poll, covers the board's whole history rather than just since subscription, and explains paging with sinceId and the returned cursor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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