veto_watch

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

Describes the action (starting a watcher) and what it returns (watch_id). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted. Could add detail on any background behavior or side effects, but overall sufficient.

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 concise sentences, each contributing unique value: first states the primary action, second links to polling, third links to stopping. No extraneous text.

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?

Complete for a simple start-watcher tool: covers the one parameter, the return value, and the expected lifecycle via sibling tools. Annotations provide additional safety info. No output schema needed.

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?

Only one parameter (project_dir) with a description in the schema. The description doesn't add beyond the schema's own description, so baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool starts a file watcher on a project directory and returns a watch_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools (veto_watch_poll and veto_watch_stop) by explicitly naming them for next steps.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: use this to start a watcher, then call veto_watch_poll to collect events and veto_watch_stop when done. This directly guides the agent on tool sequencing.

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