watch_inspect

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it 'never claims a delivery' and that 'all is refused unless watch.allow_inspect_all=true.' This helps the agent avoid unwanted side effects and understand the gated 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: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, followed by concise safety and routing notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description provides the key contextual cues for correct use. It omits explicit duty_id/limit semantics, but those are partially inferable from names/defaults and do not create a critical gap for this inspection tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the scope enum ('mine,' 'unaddressed,' gated 'all'), but does not explain duty_id or limit. Partial compensation is present, but not all parameters gain added meaning.

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 and resource: 'Explicitly inspect mine, unaddressed, or the gated all-delivery view.' It also clarifies that inspection 'never claims a delivery,' which differentiates it from state-changing sibling tools like watch_wait and watch_ack.

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?

It explicitly routes normal work to watch_wait instead and states the configuration condition that governs the 'all' scope (watch.allow_inspect_all=true). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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