Sb3 Vm Watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (polling and diffing) and output shape (old/new/changed per key), but leaves statefulness, first-call semantics, side effects, and the meaning of '(proxied)' unexplained.

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 extremely compact and front-loads the core purpose and result shape. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is cryptic and does not earn its place, but the structure itself is efficient and not padded.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description contributes the old/new/changed concept, but critical context is missing: parameter semantics, usage conditions, lifecycle behavior, and what 'proxied' means. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant completeness gap.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'name' or 'target' parameters. Both are optional with empty defaults, but there is no indication of what they filter, how they relate to variables, or what values are valid.

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 identifies a variable watcher that polls, diffs, and returns old/new/changed values per key. This distinguishes it from variable setters/deleters and state readers, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary.

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 'poll-and-diff variable watcher' implies it should be used when you need to observe variable changes over time. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives like sb3_vm_state or sb3_set_variable.

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