mix_get_peak_watch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it does not stop the running watch, and it returns cumulative sampled peaks. This clarifies both the side-effect profile and the data semantics.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core action and the critical behavioral qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single parameter, the existence of an output schema, and the read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could also explicitly mention that a watch must already be running, since mix_start_peak_watch is a sibling, but the wording 'without stopping the watch' makes that context reasonably inferable.

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?

The only parameter, watch_id, is not explained in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the schema provides a clear title and a 32-character hex pattern, and the parameter's meaning is evident from its name. The description adds no additional parameter-level value, but for a single obvious parameter this is acceptable.

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: 'Read cumulative sampled peaks.' It also includes the key qualifier 'without stopping the watch,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from mix_stop_peak_watch and mix_start_peak_watch. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 conveys a clear usage context: use this when you want to sample peaks while the watch continues running. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'without stopping the watch' phrasing effectively implies the relevant contrast with the stop tool.

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