list_work_package_watchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by confirming 'this does not change subscriptions', reinforcing the read-only nature. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, pagination) are disclosed, but the annotation covers the key aspect.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It could mention the return format, but the lack of output schema reduces the need. Still, it's nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter workPackageId. The description does not explicitly describe the parameter beyond implying it identifies the work package. With zero coverage, more detail was needed to compensate.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'current watchers of one work package'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_work_package_watcher and remove_work_package_watcher by noting it does not change subscriptions.

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 says 'Use before adding or removing a watcher to verify membership and user IDs', providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the guidance is strong and differentiates from siblings.

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