dv_watch_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond them: the enqueue step is atomic and the scan continuation advances only after enqueuing, which explains ordering and statefulness. It still omits failure behavior, whether re-running is safe, and what a 'bounded chunk' means.

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 dense sentence with the scan action and its side effect front-loaded; there is no filler. It is arguably too terse for a non-idempotent stateful operation, but every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core loop (scan chunk, enqueue, advance continuation) is conveyed. However, for a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world tool the description says nothing about when to call it repeatedly, when to stop, or how it pairs with dv_watch_ack.

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%, so the description carries the burden for watch_id and does not meet it. It implies watch_id selects the 'watch chunk' but never states the format constraint (32-char lowercase hex) or where a valid watch_id comes from. With only one parameter the gap is small in absolute terms, but nothing is compensated.

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 gives specific verbs and a resource: scan a bounded watch chunk, enqueue events, advance the scan continuation. It is far more informative than the name alone, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like dv_watch_events or dv_watch_ack, and 'watch chunk' is internal jargon an agent may not decode.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of how this relates to dv_watch_events, dv_watch_ack, or dv_watch_list. The agent must infer the polling/scan role from the wording alone.

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