gc_capability_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose key behavioral traits: SSE mechanism, live streaming nature, initial snapshot before changes, and termination at timeout. However, it doesn't describe heartbeat behavior, error/EOF handling, or what happens on disconnect, leaving some gaps for a streaming tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core mechanism (SSE watch), immediately clarifying return pattern (initial snapshot + subsequent changes) and lifecycle boundary (until timeout). Zero waste, every clause adds 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 a streaming tool with no output schema and partial behavioral context (timeout, snapshot), the description covers the essentials but leaves out heartbeat semantics and stream-termination edge cases. The addition of gc_capability and gc_workflow_watch siblings and the rich 'none/infinity/infinite' timeout options suggest deeper behavior that isn't fully documented.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Max watch time in seconds' and 'Heartbeat interval ms'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, though it does contextualize the timeout as the terminator of the stream ('until timeout'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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') plus resource ('capability-state changes') and clarifies the SSE mechanism. It states what the tool does: live SSE watch returning initial snapshot plus subsequent changes. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling gc_capability or gc_workflow_watch, which is a minor gap, but among ~60 gc_* siblings, the watch-vs-query distinction is reasonably implied.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gc_capability (the query counterpart) or gc_workflow_watch. It doesn't state common use cases for a capability watch, nor explain when a snapshot+watch is preferred over a one-shot fetch. The description gives no 'when not to use' context.

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