grove_watch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Non-blocking' and 'Requires grove_read.' These are meaningful traits not captured by the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded. The main behavior is stated first, followed by non-blocking and dependency notes, then a terse Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 simple read-only watch tool, the description covers purpose, non-blocking behavior, a dependency, and two of three parameters. Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety. The missing app_id explanation and lack of sibling differentiation are the main gaps, but overall it is mostly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains channel_name ('Channel to check') and since_id ('Return messages with id greater than this value'), adding real semantics. However, app_id is present in the schema but completely unexplained, leaving a gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Return any new messages in a channel since since_id.' This is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like grove_watch_all or grove_get_history, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires grove_read,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention grove_watch_all, grove_get_history, or any exclusion criteria, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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