codebase_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions incremental update on start and debounced file system watching, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose potential destructive effects (e.g., overwriting previous index?), authorization needs, or limitations (e.g., single directory only), leaving gaps.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 annotations, the description explains start behavior but misses details like recursive watching, side effects of stopping, or whether multiple watchers are supported. The gaps could lead to incomplete understanding for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds behavioral context (incremental update, debouncing) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 tool starts/stops watching a project directory for file changes and updates the index. The verb 'start/stop' and resource 'project directory' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like codebase_update or codebase_context by focusing on watching.

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 explains the behavior when starting (incremental update, debounced watching) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., codebase_update) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not direct.

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