change_watcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only gives a high-level purpose, omitting key behavioral traits such as statefulness (start/stop), side effects (webhook server, hook installation), or interaction with git events. The rich parameter schema hints at these, but the description does not elaborate.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, multiple actions), the brevity sacrifices clarity; more detail would improve usability without being verbose.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool with many parameters and no output schema or annotations. It fails to explain actions (start/stop/status/trigger/install_hook), configuration (debounce, webhook), or return values. The agent lacks critical context for effective use.

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 100%, and the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., action enum, defaults, min/max). The tool description does not add any parameter-level information, staying at a generic level. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters well.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Watch code changes and trigger documentation drift detection in near real-time.' It uses a specific verb ('watch') and resource ('code changes'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on static analysis or one-time checks.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios for use, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and parameters.

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