resume_watcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, but fails to mention what happens if the watcher is already running (idempotency), error conditions, or any side effects. The behavior is under-specified for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise, two short sentences, and directly addresses the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 no-parameter tool, the description adequately states the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it leaves gaps around state prerequisites (must be paused), error behavior, and the overall impact on the watcher, making it a minimum viable description.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add anything further.

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: 'Resume the file watcher' and 'Starts watching for file changes again.' It is specific to the resume operation and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'pause_watcher' by being the direct opposite action.

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 'after pausing' implies this tool is used to restart a watcher that was previously paused, providing some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites like 'only works when the watcher is paused.'

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