Watch status (free)

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

The description states that 'Secret is looked up from local state if omitted,' which is a useful behavioral detail about parameter handling. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it cover error conditions or side effects. Given no annotations, the description provides only partial transparency.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the main content (the list of status fields) and adds the secret fallback at the end. It is appropriately brief.

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?

Without an output schema, the description is responsible for explaining the return structure. It lists many fields but does not define their meaning or possible values. It also omits error behavior, authentication requirements beyond the secret note, and any prerequisites. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 description clarifies that the secret parameter is optional and has a fallback to local state. However, it does not explain watchId beyond the schema property name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should offer more details about both parameters, but it only partially covers one.

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 lists the fields that represent watch status (state, heartbeat, triggers, expiry, delivery stats, and dead-man switch details), making it clear this tool returns status information for a watch. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', which prevents it from being a fully specific statement of purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on status rather than creation or deletion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_watch, delete_watch, or payment_status. The description simply lists fields and the secret fallback, with no context about use cases or exclusions.

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