List Watches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and listing the returned fields, but does not discuss potential pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral details. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 four short sentences, each adding distinct value: what is listed, read-only status, usage advice, and authentication requirement. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has no parameters but has an output schema, the description effectively covers what the tool returns (listing fields), when to use it (before create_watch), and prerequisites (SF_API_KEY). The presence of an output schema means return values are covered. This is complete for a list tool with good annotations.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameters. According to guidelines, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter info, which 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 lists watches with specific fields (name, definition, last_evaluated_at, pending_hits). The verb 'list' and resource 'watches' are unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tool create_watch by suggesting its use beforehand.

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 advises using this tool before create_watch to see existing watches, providing a direct usage context. It also notes the requirement for SF_API_KEY. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with other siblings like check_watches or preview_watch.

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