Extend Watchdog

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a write operation (extend), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It adds the precondition of a running task, which is critical for correct usage. However, it does not mention any limits on extension or other side effects.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes essential information.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, precondition, and effect. It could mention if multiple extensions are allowed or if there's a maximum, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema's documentation, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('extend the watchdog timer') and the resource ('for a running Beaker task'). It also explains the benefit (prevents reclamation) and is distinct from sibling tools like watch_job.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'The task must be currently running.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling set has no competing tool for this function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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