uad_watch_meters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: the polling is capped at 30 seconds, it returns as soon as any watched channel exceeds the threshold (early exit behavior), and it reports per-channel peaks. It also states the design intent behind the cap. It doesn't mention side effects, but since this is a read-only meter poll, that's acceptable.

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 only three sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does, the second gives usage cases, the third states the key limitation. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema (so return values are covered there) and six optional parameters. The description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, and design constraint (30s cap). It could have mentioned that it's a blocking call or how it handles no threshold breach, but the overall context is strong enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 explicitly names duration_s, threshold_db, and implies 'targets' via 'watched channel'. However, it does not explain device, kind, or interval_s. Given all parameters are optional with defaults, the partial compensation is moderate, but still leaves room for ambiguity on the unmentioned parameters.

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 specific verb ('poll'), the resource ('meters'), and the exact behavior (poll for up to duration_s, return when any watched channel exceeds threshold_db, report per-channel peaks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uad_peek_meters by emphasizing the 'watch' behavior and the 30-second cap, which is not mentioned for other meter-related tools.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections, listing concrete scenarios (verifying a live source, setting gain, hunting intermittent signals) and explicitly excluding long-term monitoring. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool (e.g., uad_peek_meters) for the excluded case, so it's not a full 5.

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