watch_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond that: it explicitly clarifies that the operation does not register a duty session, which is a side-effect distinction not captured in annotations. That is useful extra context.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and then appends the one caveat. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema or annotations.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent list operation with an output schema available, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it knows what it lists, that it has no side effects, and can rely on the output schema for return structure. 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters; the description appropriately stays silent on parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('configured Watch profiles'), and adds a distinguishing clause ('without registering a duty session') that separates it from session-affecting siblings like watch_start or watch_reply. The agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs from the rest of the Watch family.

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 phrase 'without registering a duty session' implies it is the safe, read-only way to view profiles, but it never explicitly says when to use it over alternatives or when not to. No sibling names or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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