watch_topic

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it is persistent, returns only new papers since last check, and updates existing watches. It also explains the query syntax compatibility with search_papers. This goes beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive hints provided.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage context, examples, and an important behavioral caveat (update vs duplicate). Every sentence contributes essential information without repetition.

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 that this is a stateful tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the persist-and-poll workflow, query syntax, and update behavior. It lacks explicit error conditions or return format, but the 'returns only papers published since the last check' covers the key output behavior.

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 fully describes all three parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the 'same query syntax as search_papers' and giving concrete examples. It also clarifies the update semantics of the topic parameter, which is not in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Save or update a persistent research topic watch.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_alerts (which polls) and search_papers (which performs one-off searches) by framing it as a standing alert mechanism.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use it (to create a standing alert) and pairs it with check_alerts. It also clarifies that calling with the same topic updates rather than duplicates. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus search_papers, 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.