start_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that files are automatically transcribed and moved to a 'done' directory, mentions the env var override, and states the allow-list requirement with rejection behavior. It also points to a sibling for results, giving a comprehensive view of the tool's side effects and constraints.

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 tightly structured with a one-line purpose, followed by two sentences of essential operational details and a pointer to the results tool. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (background watch, side effects, allow-list constraint) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it behaves, what constraints apply, and how to retrieve results. It equips an agent to decide when and how to use it effectively.

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 input schema already describes the 'folder' parameter as an absolute or ~-prefixed path. The description adds meaningful context: it is the incoming directory for watched files, and both this directory and the derived done directory must be inside the allow-list. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying parameter role and constraints.

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 opens with 'Start watching a folder for new audio files to auto-transcribe,' which is a specific verb-object phrase that clearly states the tool's function. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like transcribe_audio, stop_watch, and get_watch_results, which involve different actions.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want automatic transcription of newly dropped files. It also guides the user to call get_watch_results() to retrieve transcriptions. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with transcribe_audio for one-off transcription, so the exclusion guidance is not fully spelled out.

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