security_fetch_cve_watch_status

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: Redis cursor, first call returns last 30 days, subsequent calls return newer events, no external API calls, instant response. Annotations already declare readOnly=true, etc., but description enriches understanding.

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 thorough but slightly verbose. However, it is well-structured with clear sentences and front-loads the main purpose. Each sentence adds value.

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 (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter guidance, and a fallback mechanism. It is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is well-described. The description adds value by linking watch_ids to those used in security_fetch_cve_watch, providing real-world context. No extra syntax details needed.

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 the tool checks CVE watches for new events since last poll, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_cve_watch which creates watches, and clarifies that it returns only watches with new events.

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 recommends running on a schedule for efficiency and explains the cursor mechanism. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear. A fallback to report_feedback is provided for cases where the tool doesn't meet the user's need.

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