start_live_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the core behavior: automatic change detection, queueing, and debouncing. But it omits important context such as the watch being persistent until stopped, resource implications, or prerequisites beyond what the schema covers.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each sentence adds value. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema fields.

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 fully documented schema, the presence of an output schema, and a clear description of the tool's purpose and behavior, this is reasonably complete for a moderately complex tool. The main gap is not mentioning that watching persists until explicitly stopped, but the sibling stop_live_watch helps fill that gap.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the debouncing concept without explaining how root_dir or debounce_seconds behave in practice.

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 'Start live file watching for automatic reindexing,' a specific verb+resource construction that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stop_live_watch, get_live_watch_status, and index_codebase. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'for automatic reindexing' and the behavioral clause 'When enabled, the server will automatically detect file changes' provide a clear use case—continuous file watching as opposed to one-time manual indexing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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