list_watches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all saved watches' but does not mention whether authentication is required, how results are ordered/paginated, what fields are returned, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 that conveys the action and the scope ('all saved watches') plus a parenthetical clarifying the two types. No filler words or redundant clauses. Perfectly sized for a simple listing tool.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. It doesn't specify the return format, but for a list operation that may be inferred from the context or API conventions. The lack of any mention of sorting or filtering is acceptable since there are no parameters. A 4 reflects that it's adequate, not exceptional.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param details, so it meets that baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all saved watches'), and explicitly differentiates the two watch types ('search watches and listing price-drop watches'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_search (create) and watch_listing (save), without requiring schema inspection.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool (retrieving saved watches). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but among the siblings there is no competing list-all tool, so the context is unambiguous. A small deduction for lack of explicit guidance.

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