watch_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch' and 'Returns JSON', without clarifying read-only nature, idempotency, error handling, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that could have network or permission implications.

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 sentence covering action, resource, and return type with no superfluous words. Every part adds value: verb, resource, included data, and format.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what is returned but lacks details on the JSON structure, possible error responses, or performance considerations. The mention of 'baseline image URL and status' partially compensates for the missing output schema, but is not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'id' already described as 'The watch ID (UUID)'. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating 'by ID', so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Fetch one watch by ID', providing a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like watch_list (list) by focusing on a single watch retrieval. The inclusion of 'including its current baseline image URL and status' adds specificity.

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 when to use (when you have a specific watch ID) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives. No mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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