changedetection_list_watches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the call maps to GET /api/v1/watch and that recheck-all is a distinct write path; it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or whether the list can be large.

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?

Four short fragments with the core operation front-loaded and the sibling caveat last; nothing is padded. The raw endpoint string is arguably low-value for an agent but is compact enough not to hurt.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the one filtering option. It falls short only on return-shape hints (e.g., whether watches include tags/state) that would help an agent decide between this and get_watch.

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% and the single tag parameter is documented as a filter, so the description's mention of 'Optional tag name filter' merely corroborates the schema. No added syntax, matching behavior, or case-sensitivity detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List watches') plus the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It also separates itself from recheck-all by labeling that a write tool, though it doesn't differentiate from other read siblings like list_tags or get_watch.

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 clause 'Recheck-all is a separate write tool' implicitly steers an agent away from treating this as a state-changing recheck, which is useful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to filter by tag versus listing everything, and no stated alternatives for fetching a single watch.

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