watch_start_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits but fails to do so. It does not explain what 'watching' entails (e.g., monitoring interval, resource usage, side effects) or whether it is safe to call multiple times.

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 appropriately short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it omits essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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's complexity (no output schema, one parameter), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return value (e.g., watch identifier), termination conditions, and interaction with watch_stop_tool.

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 only parameter 'path' is not described beyond its name. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what path format is expected (absolute, relative, directory or file) or its role in the watch operation.

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 states the action ('Start watching a codebase') and the purpose ('for incremental graph updates'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like parse_codebase_tool (parsing) and watch_stop_tool (stopping).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as parse_codebase_tool or query_graph_tool. There are no prerequisites, postconditions, or context about the watch lifecycle mentioned.

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