jambavan_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that changes trigger incremental re-indexing (not full rescan) and lists each action's behavior. Lacks details on error conditions or required permissions, but overall satisfactory.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by actions and usage tips. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers main use cases and behavior. Could mention failure modes or status output details, but overall sufficient.

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 100% for the single param 'action', so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each enum value's behavior and prerequisites (e.g., 'start' requires index to 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?

The description clearly states the tool controls a live file watcher to keep index in sync, with three specific actions (start, stop, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jambavan_index by focusing on watching changes rather than initial indexing.

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?

It explicitly advises using 'start' after jambavan_index and mentions that incremental re-indexing occurs automatically. While it doesn't list when not to use the tool, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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