add_watch_dir

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a directory is added to the watch list but does not mention side effects, idempotency, duplicate handling, permission requirements, or whether reindexing starts immediately.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 this is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations, it lacks details about behavioral side effects and edge cases such as duplicate directories or invalid paths.

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. It clarifies that 'path' refers to a directory, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but it does not specify path format, existence requirements, or whether relative/absolute paths are accepted.

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 states a specific verb ('Agrega') and resource ('directorio al watch list') and explains the purpose ('para auto-reindexación'). It clearly differentiates this from siblings like remove_watch_dir and list_watch_dirs.

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 the tool is for adding directories to be watched for auto-reindexing, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over similar siblings or mention any exclusions. The use case is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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