run_watches_now

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, externally interacting operation. The description adds that it runs a monitoring pass and notifies about new slots, but omits auth needs, idempotency, rate limits, and notification delivery details.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and its effect. Every phrase earns its place with no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a zero-parameter trigger action, the description adequately covers the purpose and notification effect, though it could specify prerequisites or scope.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable because no parameters exist.

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 ('Lance') and resource ('passe de surveillance'), plus the notification effect ('notifie les nouveaux créneaux'). Clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling watch tools such as watch_practitioner or list_watches.

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 adverb 'immédiatement' implies a manual immediate trigger as opposed to configured or scheduled watches. However, it never states when to use this tool versus watch_practitioner, watch_area, configure_notifications, or when not to use it, leaving usage only implied.

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