watch_file

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable push-semantics context ('server-pushed document changes') and discloses that a resource URI is returned, but it omits lifecycle details such as whether the watch persists until unwatch_file is called, whether it consumes resources, or what permissions are required.

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 two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to purpose or next-step behavior.

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?

For a watch tool with no output schema and two required parameters that are entirely undocumented in the schema, the description should explain the returned resource URI more concretely and clarify watch lifecycle or cleanup expectations. It does a little but leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0% for both required parameters (projectId, path), and the description does not mention either parameter or explain their meaning, format, or constraints. The definition provides no semantic help beyond what is already visible in the property names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Start watching server-pushed document changes' clearly communicates the action and the change stream it produces. It does not fully distinguish itself from siblings such as read_file or unwatch_file, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 names follow-up tools ('Use wait_for_file_change or subscribe to the returned resource URI'), which gives implied usage guidance without stating when to use watch_file instead of polling or reading the file directly. It does not mention when not to use it or how to stop watching.

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