Watch operator parameter changes

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the opt-in nature, the event payload shape, the bridge-side coalescing to prevent flooding, and the fact that it works even when TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=0. It also notes that events only arrive when the server's TD event stream is enabled, adding environmental context.

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 composed of four sentences, each contributing critical information: the core subscription behavior, the action syntax, the event stream prerequisite and coalescing behavior, and the bridge allow_exec note. It is dense but not redundant.

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 annotations, output schema, and the detailed description covering opt-in semantics, actions, event conditions, and subscription scope, the description is contextually complete for this tool's complexity.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds value by explaining the interplay between `action` and `parameters` (e.g., 'parameters' is optional and scoped for watch/unwatch, omitted for list), and provides an example path 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 clearly states the tool subscribes to `param.changed` events for an operator's parameters, with a specific event payload. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `watch_node` by focusing on parameter-level changes rather than node-level watching.

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 provides explicit context for when to use it: opt-in subscription, with three actions ('watch', 'unwatch', 'list') and prerequisites like the TD event stream being enabled. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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