List Watches

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating what is returned (board, channel, destination, active state, last delivery outcome) and the ownership scope ('you own'). This exceeds what the annotation alone provides.

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 tight, purposeful sentences. The first explains the resource and returned fields; the second gives the practical purpose. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the resource, scope, returned fields, and how to use the output. Pagination parameters are documented in the schema, and the annotation covers safety. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both limit and offset fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but it does not need to because the schema already explains the pagination semantics clearly. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('board watches you own') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also states the primary purpose of the result ('find a watchId'), which distinguishes it from sibling watch-related tools like list_watch_changes and list_watch_deliveries.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to find a watchId for the other watch tools. It does not provide explicit negative guidance about when not to use it, but the stated use case is clear enough to avoid obvious confusion with sibling tools.

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