get_watch_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: polling is cheap, the call succeeds even while the app is starting up, and it doubles as an API liveness check — genuinely useful operational traits.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the return contents first and the operational guidance second. Slightly dense in the second clause, but every phrase (poll cost, startup availability, liveness role) carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back — and it does, listing watch state, badge, and permission health. Nothing needed to call this zero-arg read tool correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty object schema, leaving no gaps.

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 read verb and enumerates the exact resource facets returned: watch state for Teams/Zoom/Webex, menu bar badge, and permission health. This is immediately separable from set_watch and the transcription siblings, which operate on jobs and files rather than app state.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('cheap enough to poll', usable as a liveness check for the automation API) and notes it works during startup. It does not explicitly name set_watch as the mutating counterpart, so the alternative routing is implied rather than stated.

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