watch_folder_for_recordings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It covers start/stop via 'enabled', Chokidar specifics (ignoreInitial:true, awaitWriteFinish), autoIngest behavior (silent skip of unsupported files), in-memory only persistence, and duplicate enable response. This is thorough and transparent.

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 front-loaded with purpose and concisely covers key details. It includes multiple subpoints but remains focused. Minor improvement could be structuring into bullet points, but overall efficient.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers tool purpose, behavior, limitations, and parameter meanings. It specifies return value for one edge case but does not describe full success/error response format. Still, it is largely complete for agent understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining defaults (enabled and autoIngest default true), behavior of autoIngest (silent skip), and the 'already-watching' response for duplicate enables. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose: to start or stop a folder watcher that auto-ingests audio files. It uses specific verbs ('start/stop') and resources ('folder watcher'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_folder_for_media' by emphasizing real-time watching and providing natural language use cases such as 'watch my Voice Memos folder'.

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 provides explicit usage triggers ('Use this when the user says...') and explains behavior for enabling an already-watched path. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool, though sibling tools imply differentiation. The note about in-memory watchers not surviving restart offers important context.

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