Get Watch Results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical non-obvious trait: calling it CLEARS the queue, i.e. a destructive side effect that consumes results. It does not mention auth requirements, idempotency, or behavior when no transcriptions are ready, but the key destructive behavior is surfaced.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive queue-clearing side effect before the return fields. The second sentence duplicates the output schema slightly but is short and useful for a quick scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and with zero parameters the description's main job is behavioral context — which it partly delivers by flagging the queue clearing. The main gap is workflow context (that it pairs with start_watch/stop_watch) rather than call mechanics.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to interpret and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of return fields is redundant with the output schema but not harmful.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: returning completed watch-folder transcriptions. The 'watch-folder' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling transcribe_audio, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'completed watch-folder transcriptions' signals this is called after start_watch to harvest output, but there is no explicit when-to-call, polling guidance, or statement about what to do when the queue is empty. No alternatives are named.

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