watch_file

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a solid job by explaining stop conditions (pattern found, or any change when pattern is empty), timeout default and max, polling interval, and tail_lines returned. It does not explicitly describe a timeout error scenario or how it handles a non-existent file, which are mild gaps.

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 wll-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a brief use-case list, three illustrative examples, and a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the layout makes defaults and constraints easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, and each parameter with defaults/limits, while the output schema covers return values. It does not explicitly state timeout/error behavior or relationship to sibling monitoring tools, but for a file-watch tool with strong parameter documentation it is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does fully. The Args section explains each parameter: path, regex pattern semantics and empty-pattern behavior, timeout defaults/max, interval defaults/min, and the purpose of tail_lines. This adds materially beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Watch a file for changes or a specific pattern', naming a specific verb and resource, and the examples clarify the intended file-focused scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like monitor_command or poll_url, so differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 states 'Useful for monitoring log files, build outputs, job status files' and gives three concrete usage examples, which gives the agent clear context for when to call it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as poll_url for URLs, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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