dsh_observe

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal context by labeling it a 'compatibility observation alias', hinting it is a legacy wrapper, but does not disclose specific behavioral details like return format or side effects. This is slight added value, hence a middle score.

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 brief and efficiently structured: a short definition followed by a usage recommendation. Both sentences serve a purpose, though the first sentence is somewhat empty. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a high score.

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 no output schema and only sparse annotations. The description fails to explain what 'observe' does, how it behaves, or what the parameters mean. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke it, though the guidance to prefer alternatives is useful.

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%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters (taskId, afterCursor, waitSeconds). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics completely unexplained.

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 'Compatibility observation alias' is vague and does not specify a concrete action or resource. It restates 'observe' in noun form and adds 'compatibility alias', but fails to explain what the tool actually does, making it difficult to distinguish from siblings based on purpose alone.

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 explicitly states 'Prefer dsh_wait plus dsh_tail task cursors', providing clear guidance on when NOT to use this tool and naming specific alternatives. This fully addresses usage differentiation and satisfies the when/when-not requirement.

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