get_watch_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a precise return shape, the local-vs-GitHub distinction, and actionable remediation commands. No contradiction exists, and the added context goes beyond the annotation.

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?

Three sentences pack an overview, return shape, follow-up commands, and scope limitation without any filler. Each sentence earns its place, and the first sentence front-loads the core purpose.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior, return shape, scope exclusions, and next steps. The only minor ambiguity is the 'hint' field, but the overall picture is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already defines everything; the description has nothing to add. The return-object shape described partially compensates for the lack of an output schema, aligning with the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 'Reports whether' with explicit subjects ('jdocmunch-watch service', per-repo 'source_root exists'), defining a specific status-check resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling doc-coverage or section-summary tools.

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 states the tool's scope ('Covers locally-indexed repos only') and explicitly excludes GitHub-indexed repos, but it does not name a sibling alternative for those cases. It also provides commands to run to maintain freshness, implying the check is used to decide when to act.

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