file_watch

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

Description claims non-destructive monitoring (captures events) but annotations set destructiveHint=true, a contradiction. Also readOnlyHint=false conflicts with the read-only nature of watching. The description does not resolve or acknowledge these inconsistencies.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details. The last sentence provides context but could be considered slightly informal; overall concise and effective.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior (real-time capturing of events, kernel-level mechanism). Missing potential output format info, but acceptable for a monitoring tool.

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 descriptions fully cover both parameters (path and seconds). Description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining baseline score.

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?

Clearly states it watches files/directories for changes using kernel events, listing event types. However, does not differentiate from sibling tool 'critical_file_monitor' which might serve a similar purpose.

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?

Implies usage when real-time file monitoring is needed in a background process, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternatives like 'critical_file_monitor'.

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