config_watch_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Show' aligns with that. The description adds value by disclosing the exact data reported (last 5 reload passes) and the watched-file resolution behavior in both hybrid and legacy modes. This goes beyond the read-only annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact: three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add necessary mode-specific details without repetition or filler. Every sentence 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?

For a no-argument, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, both operation modes, and the relevant environment variable. There are no hidden parameters or destructive actions to warn about, so nothing critical 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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds useful environment-variable context (THREADKEEPER_CONFIG_WATCH_PATH) and explains how watched files are resolved, which helps the agent understand external configuration influence. There is no parameter documentation burden to fulfill.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Show hot-config-reload state + the last 5 reload passes.' This precisely identifies what the tool reports and distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like config_reload. The added mode details further clarify its scope.

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 description implies a read-only status-inspection use case but never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as config_reload. It provides useful context about hybrid vs legacy modes but lacks direct 'use when' guidance or exclusions. Usage is therefore inferred rather than clearly directed.

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