List Watched Directories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns schedules, which is useful output context, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, the description's contribution is modest, earning a 3.

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 a single sentence that states the action and the key detail (schedules) without any filler. It is immediately front-loaded and fits the tool's simplicity perfectly. 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?

For a read-only list operation, the description covers the essence but leaves gaps. It does not mention the response_format parameter, nor does it describe the output structure (no output schema exists). An agent might not know how to request JSON or what the returned data looks like. The description is adequate for a basic list tool, but the missing parameter explanation and output format detail make it incomplete.

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 schema has one parameter (response_format) with an enum of json/markdown and a default, but the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or effect, but it does not. The agent is left to infer that response_format controls the output format from the enum alone, which is insufficient given the lack of any description.

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 explicitly states 'List all directories currently being watched with their schedules.' This is a specific verb (List) and resource (watched directories), and the addition of 'with their schedules' distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_organizer_list_files or file_organizer_watch_directory. It unambiguously conveys the tool's purpose.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for viewing current watch configurations, which implies its use when an agent needs to know what directories are being watched. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., file_organizer_watch_directory for adding watches) or state conditions like 'use this to inspect watches.' Still, the context is clear enough that an agent would correctly infer when to call it.

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