cst_start_dialog_watcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the watcher runs in a background thread, automatically detects and dismisses CST dialog windows, and logs each dismissal. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., performance impact), but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and a reference to the complementary tool. Every word adds value.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a straightforward start action, the description provides complete context: what it does, when to use it (long-running ops), and what the output is (a log retrievable via another tool). No missing information.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description needs no parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('dialog watcher'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tools 'cst_stop_dialog_watcher' (complementary) and 'cst_dismiss_dialogs' (one-time action) by noting it runs in the background for long-running operations.

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 when to use the tool ('essential for long-running operations like optimization loops where dialogs would otherwise block execution') and references the complementary tool 'cst_stop_dialog_watcher' for retrieving logs. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear.

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