mdl_custom_lists_get_watch_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say what is returned, whether the status is per-user or per-list, or whether the list must be public.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; one sentence that conveys no information beyond the tool name does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is the only place meaning could be supplied, and it supplies none. An agent knows it reads something about a list's watch status but not what that status is or what it will get back.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required list_id, and the description does not compensate at all — no hint about accepted identifier form or that it accepts either an integer or a slug-like string. The agent must infer everything from the anyOf schema alone.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Custom Lists: get watch status' maps one-to-one onto mdl_custom_lists_get_watch_status. It gives a namespace and a verb but never explains what 'watch status' actually means for a custom list, so it cannot be distinguished from siblings like get_detail or get_votes on the basis of the text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other custom-list read tools (get_detail, get_votes, get_user_lists). No prerequisites, no mention of whose watch status, no exclusions.

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