watchpin_state

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get current') and lists returned information. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or safe, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions. The description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information is present.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly more detailed about potential output format or edge cases, but the output schema likely covers those details. Overall, it is nearly complete for the context.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 gets the current WatchPin configuration and state, specifying it shows which WatchPins are enabled, their trigger conditions, and polarity. Among sibling tools like watchpin_configure and watchpin_enable, it distinctly serves as a read-only state retrieval, avoiding confusion.

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 implies usage for inspecting WatchPin state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other watchpin-related tools (e.g., configure, disable). No alternatives or when-not scenarios are provided, which is acceptable for a simple query tool but leaves room for improvement.

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