db.watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the stateless incremental fetch pattern, but omits important traits: what happens when lastCursor is null, how to derive the next cursor from the response, behavior for deletions or out-of-order inserts, and any rate limiting or consistency guarantees.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and usage pattern. Every word earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the complexity of cursor-based polling, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the return shape, how to obtain the next cursor, handling of initial lastCursor=null, or potential pitfalls (e.g., non-unique cursorColumn). This leaves significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the relationship between cursorColumn and lastCursor, but leaves batchSize, database, and the default/purpose of lastCursor (null case) unexplained. Partial compensation for the two key cursor parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one incremental batch'), and clearly states the core mechanism (cursorColumn > lastCursor). It distinguishes db.watch from general query tools like db.query by emphasizing incremental, cursor-based fetching.

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 phrase 'Repeat client-side for polling' explicitly frames this as a polling tool and indicates a client-driven loop. It does not name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the incremental polling context is clear enough to imply when this tool is appropriate.

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