watch_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the action is recording signals for a duration, but does not disclose whether this is non-destructive, what happens to the recorded data, whether it blocks, or how it behaves if nodes are not live. This is a moderate disclosure but leaves important behavior unspecified.

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. Every word adds meaning: 'Record' is the verb, 'every signal' is the scope, 'live nodes' and 'duration in milliseconds' are key parameters. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a log of emitted signals), whether it has side effects, or the semantics of signal_filter. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description leaves important gaps for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 description implicitly covers node_paths ('given live nodes') and duration_ms ('duration in milliseconds'), but does not mention signal_filter. With 0% schema coverage in the description, it partially compensates by explaining two of three parameters, but the third parameter's semantics rely solely on its name.

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 identifies the action ('Record'), the target ('every signal emitted by the given live nodes'), and the duration. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like connect_signal, get_signals, and analyze_signal_flow, which manage or inspect signals rather than record emissions over time.

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 use when you need to capture signals from live nodes over a period, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_signals or connect_signal, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., nodes must be live). This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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