register_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Record' and gives no side effects, overwrite semantics, identity requirements, or relation to other watch tools; binding_token's role appears only in the schema, not the description.

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 with no filler, easy to parse. It is concise even though it sacrifices detail.

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 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: no target-combination rules, no mention of binding_token, and no indication of postconditions or how to close/replace a watch.

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?

Description names worker id, label, and done-file, adding meaning to those three params, but omits binding_token and note. With schema description coverage at only 20%, note remains entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Record') and identifies the resource ('which job this agent is waiting on') with the three target forms. It is distinguishable from close_watch and wait_for_signal, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to register a watch versus alternatives, when to call close_watch, or what prerequisites exist. The schema's 'At least one target is required' is the only constraint and appears outside the description.

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