boss_watch_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description indicates a read-only list operation, which is consistent with the tool's behavior. While it does not elaborate on side effects or permissions, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, list operation) makes this sufficient.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary information. Every character serves to clarify the tool's purpose.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple list operation, the description provides complete context. It tells what the tool does in a straightforward manner, which is sufficient for effective use.

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 with 100% coverage (none needed). The description adds meaning by specifying that the tool lists 'all saved monitoring conditions', clarifying the scope of the operation beyond the schema.

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 '列出所有已保存的监控条件' clearly states the tool's function as listing all saved monitoring conditions. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('monitoring conditions'), and the name 'boss_watch_list' distinguishes it from siblings like 'boss_watch_add' and 'boss_watch_remove'.

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 implies usage for viewing saved watch conditions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boss_watch_add' or 'boss_watch_run'. Since sibling tools exist, more explicit context would help an agent choose correctly.

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