grove_watch_all

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavior: non-blocking execution, an explicit dependency on grove_read, and the filtering behavior that only channels with new messages appear. These are all beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, one prerequisite line, an Args section with an example, and a concise return explanation. Every line earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description properly defines the exact return shape and filtering behavior, making the tool callable. The only gap is the unexplained optional app_id parameter, which is acceptable since it has a default and is not required.

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?

cursors is well explained with a concrete example mapping channel names to since_id values. However, schema description coverage is 0% and app_id is not mentioned in the description, leaving optional parameter semantics entirely to the schema default. The core parameter is handled well, but not all params are compensated for.

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: checking multiple channels at once for new messages. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling grove_watch, which is the single-channel variant, and the non-blocking note further sets its behavior apart.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use it — batch-checking multiple channels — and explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires grove_read.' It does not explicitly name grove_watch as the single-channel alternative or list exclusions, which keeps this from being a 5.

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