boss_watch_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects, permissions, or behavior under different states (e.g., no watches, pagination). It includes availability constraints, but they pertain to user roles rather than tool behavior.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose, plus an availability note. Every word is necessary and there is no verbosity. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it clearly states what the tool does. However, it lacks information about the return format, pagination limits, or behavior when no conditions are saved, but for a simple list command, this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional semantics are required.

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's purpose: '列出所有已保存的监控条件' (list all saved monitoring conditions). It uses a specific verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('已保存的监控条件' - saved monitoring conditions), and it implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boss_watch_add and boss_watch_remove, which perform create/delete operations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. For a simple listing tool, the usage is implied: use it to view saved watch conditions. However, there is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, which limits guidance for an AI agent.

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