watch_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses what data is returned (baseline, samples, drift history) and the effect of include_archived, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only) or any side effects. Moderate transparency.

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 very concise: three sentences covering purpose, modes, and parameter guidance. No wasted words; each sentence adds essential information.

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 presence of sibling tools like watch_cancel and watch_resample, the description adequately covers its own function and return details. It could mention pagination or limitations, but for a simple inspection tool, it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 50% (only watch_id has a description). The description adds value by explaining the behavior for both parameters: watch_id's role in fetching full record, and include_archived's purpose. This compensates for the missing schema description.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Inspect post-fix watches' and explains two distinct modes (listing active watches vs. returning full record with watch_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_cancel or watch_resample.

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 clear context for when to use each mode (with/without watch_id) and the include_archived parameter. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as recommending watch_cancel for cancellation.

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