neuron_get_watches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It clearly signals a read operation ('Get') and adds meaningful context with 'active' and 'accumulated changes', implying no destructive side effects and that the tool returns state gathered over time. It does not explicitly say it avoids clearing watches, but nothing suggests mutation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'Get' sets the action, 'active element watches' defines scope, and 'accumulated changes' describes the returned content.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter, the description explains what the tool returns and the scope of that return. Without an output schema, the exact shape of 'accumulated changes' is unspecified, but the essential call intent is clear and complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is fully complete. The description adds meaning about the operation's focus on active watches and accumulated changes, which aligns with the empty input contract. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active element watches'), and explicitly mentions the payload ('accumulated changes'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like neuron_watch_element (creates watches) and neuron_stop_watch (removes them).

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 this is the retrieval counterpart to watch operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus neuron_watch_element, neuron_stop_watch, or other inspection tools. An agent can infer it is for reading current watch state, but no direct guidance or exclusions are given.

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