rba_watch_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core behavior—watching a file and sending/evaling on change—but omits important details like the persistent nature of the watcher, the need for a Roblox connection, stopping mechanisms, or error handling. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and context without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured, earning a top score.

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?

For a tool that initiates a long-running watch process, the description lacks essential context: how to stop it, prerequisites like an active Roblox connection, and the existence of related watcher-management tools (rba_unwatch_file, rba_list_watchers). No annotations or output schema compensate, leaving the description incomplete for safe and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'workspace Lua file' (path) and 'send or eval' (mode), but the other four parameters (target, timeoutMs, debounceMs, syntaxCheck) have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. The description only partially illuminates the parameter space.

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 uses a specific verb ('Watch'), identifies the resource ('workspace Lua file'), and explains the action ('auto-send or eval it in Roblox on change for live editing'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling one-shot tools like rba_send_lua_file and rba_eval_lua_file by emphasizing the watch-and-react behavior.

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 phrase 'on change for live editing' provides clear context for when to use this tool: during iterative development where you want automatic updates. It implies this is preferred over manually sending files each time, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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