changedetection_recheck_all

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, openWorld, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about queuing a recheck and omitting confirm for a dry-run, though it does not describe side effects, return values, or operational limits.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence adds practical information: scope, API route, and dry-run behavior.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety characteristics, the description supplies the essential scope and dry-run behavior. It could be slightly more complete with return or permission context, but nothing critical is missing.

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 both tag and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description restates those semantics rather than adding new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Queue a recheck for every watch" with an optional tag limit. The "every watch" scope distinguishes it from recheck_watch, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from recheck_tag, which also deals with tag-based rechecks.

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?

It gives clear dry-run guidance by saying to omit confirm, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus recheck_watch or recheck_tag. The usage is implied by the scope, but alternatives are not explicitly routed.

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