watcher_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the contextual qualifiers 'legacy' and 'local,' which help scope the tool, but it does not disclose any further behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or output behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word ('Show,' 'legacy,' 'local,' 'watcher state') contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool has no output schema, an undocumented optional parameter, and a potentially overlapping sibling 'status,' yet the description only offers a one-line summary. It does not explain return values, the meaning of 'root,' or when to prefer this tool over related siblings, so the agent lacks enough context for confident invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention the optional 'root' parameter at all. Since the schema provides only the name and type, the agent has no way to know what 'root' means or how it affects the watcher state request.

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 'Show' and the resource 'legacy local watcher state,' which is specific enough to distinguish this from generic 'status' or 'stop_watcher.' However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'status' or 'stop_watcher.' The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or alternatives.

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