stone_watch_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation reads a variable from a connected target, but does not describe permissions, return format, failure behavior, or whether the target must first be connected via stone_target_connect.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity contributes to missing contextual detail elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too sparse for reliable invocation. It leaves the meaning of 'solution', requiredness of parameters, return value, and error behavior undocumented.

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 for both parameters. It mentions 'variable' but does not explain the 'solution' parameter, whether either parameter is required, or what format the variable identifier should take.

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 and resource: read one variable from the connected target. It is clear and distinct from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as stone_symbols or stone_solution_state.

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 sentence implies a read operation against a connected target, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites beyond 'connected target', or alternatives among sibling tools. It does not say when this tool should be selected over stone_symbols or stone_solution_state.

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