process_resource_watch_readRead recent resource samples and threshold violations from a process watch to monitor process resource usage and detect issues.
Read recent resource samples and threshold violations from a process watch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tail | No | ||
| watchId | Yes | ||
| deviceId | No | ||
| deviceName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that samples AND threshold violations are returned, which is real context, but says nothing about the tail/retention semantics or what happens when no samples exist.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and usage detail an agent needs.
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?
A read tool with four params at 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs to explain the tail limit and the deviceId/deviceName filter relationship, and it does none of that. Only the safety profile is carried elsewhere (annotations).
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It never explains watchId, the tail limit (how many samples), or why both deviceId and deviceName exist as filters. Genuine gap for a tool whose filtering behavior is entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (process resource watch), and even previews the payload: 'recent resource samples and threshold violations'. An agent can tell what it returns, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from process_resource_watch_list or process_resource_snapshot.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (process_resource_watch_start/stop/list) that an agent must coordinate with. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.