file_watcher

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states 'watch ... for changes' without explaining the lifecycle (start/stop), event types, or that it's a long-running operation. The input schema hints at these, but the description does not elaborate.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded beyond the single sentence, and every word earns its place, but the description fails to convey essential information.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 2 required, multiple sub-actions, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to use the 'action' sub-commands, what events are, or what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, such as explaining the 'action' enum or how 'events' work.

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 clearly states the verb 'watch' and the resource 'files and directories for changes', distinguishing it from single-operation sibling tools like read_file or write_file. However, it could be more specific about being an ongoing monitoring tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. Sibling tools include many file operations but no other watcher, yet no usage context is given.

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