watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tables without a prior baseline are profiled silently and their baseline is set for next time, indicating a write operation. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor does it specify the cap limit or potential side effects beyond setting baselines.

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 concise at four sentences. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence and provides necessary details without extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality, parameter usage, and edge case (no baseline). It lacks details like the cap limit and what 'profile' entails, but these are minor given the output schema. A 4 is suitable.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains the parameter's purpose: 'Pass `tables` to limit scope, or omit to watch everything.' This compensates well, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition. A 4 reflects strong compensation.

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 tool profiles tables and detects anomalies against a stored baseline. It specifies the return value (type, severity, message per table) and that results are capped. While the purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like 'check' or 'history', it does not explicitly differentiate itself, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 explicit guidance on the parameter: 'Pass `tables` to limit scope, or omit to watch everything.' It also explains behavior for tables without a baseline. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over siblings like 'check' or 'investigate', missing some usage context.

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