watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals key behavior: asynchronous monitoring, return of fired status, timing, and before/after evidence images. However, it omits authentication requirements, whether the call blocks, and what happens on timeout (e.g., fired=false).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and conditions, then return details. Efficient and mostly free of waste, though the condition list is redundant with the schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully discloses return values (fired status, timing, evidence images) and asynchronous behavior. It is largely complete for calling the tool, though it could clarify the optional camera/region defaults and timeout semantics beyond the schema.

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 parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats the condition enum values already present in the schema and adds no new semantic detail for camera, region, threshold, or timeout.

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 (monitor) and resource (camera) with the waiting condition and timeout. This clearly differentiates it from instantaneous siblings like capture_image or get_status, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_status, capture_sequence, or measure. The description only restates what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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