Check watches now

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it discloses a non-obvious side effect: the invocation counts as an attended check and bypasses the normal polling slot. It also specifies that it evaluates all active watches and returns only those that fired. This gives enough detail for an agent to understand the action, though it does not discuss error cases or state changes beyond the check count.

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 a single sentence that leads with the core action, then provides the key nuance in a parenthetical, then states the return. No redundant or filler wording is present.

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?

For a parameterless action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it defines the scope ('every active watch'), the timing ('right now'), the behavioral consequence ('counts as an attended check'), and the response ('return what fired'). An agent can invoke and interpret the result without further documentation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.

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 action ('Evaluate every active watch right now') and a concrete return ('return what fired'). It is clearly distinct from watch lifecycle siblings (create/list/delete) by focusing on immediate evaluation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 'counts as an attended check' with 'does not wait for the polling slot' gives clear context for when to invoke: when an immediate, on-demand evaluation is wanted instead of waiting for scheduled polling. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool is mentioned, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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