list_watches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists owned watches only, covers all channels/boards, and is '**Free**,' which is cost-related context. It also hints at the return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any rate limits, but the 'List' verb and mention of specific fields provide reasonable transparency.

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 two sentences plus a bold '**Free.**' It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides practical use cases and cost info. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, cost, and even mentions specific fields returned. The scope and use-case coverage are sufficient without needing more.

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 coverage is 100% since both `limit` and `offset` have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, only indirectly referencing output fields like `id` and `lastNotifiedAt`. 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'List every board watch you own, across every channel and board.' The verb and resource are specific, and the scope ('every channel and board') distinguishes it from sibling tools that list changes or 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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to check a watch's `id` for the update/delete/test/deliveries routes below, or to see `lastNotifiedAt`/`lastStatus` for a quick health check without opening the deliveries endpoint.' This names concrete scenarios and contrasts with the deliveries endpoint, offering strong guidance.

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