watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'watch[es]' and 'auto-process[es]', but does not clarify key behavioral traits such as whether it runs indefinitely, how it handles errors, whether existing files are processed, or what the return/exit behavior is. The description is too brief to give a complete behavioral picture.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without superfluous details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

Despite having a nested config object and no output schema, the description does not explain what happens when the watch runs (e.g., does it block, return a handle, list processed files?). It also doesn't clarify how config is used in practice, such as defaults or required subfields for each action. The tool is more complex than the description conveys, leaving gaps in context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it names the actions (rename, pdf-split) but the schema already enumerates them. The config object is not elaborated beyond the schema, so no additional semantic insight is provided.

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's function: 'Watch a directory for new files and auto-process them' with specific verbs and resources. It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning 'rename or pdf-split', which are separate tools, indicating this is a higher-level watcher that dispatches to 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?

The description implies usage for monitoring a directory and automatically applying actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of directly calling rename or pdf-split, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It provides context (new files) but lacks clear guidance on alternatives.

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