watch.run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool performs an immediate search and persists results, but it does not clarify whether execution is synchronous, whether it mutates watch state, whether repeated runs duplicate data, or what failure behavior looks like.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative --all mode is placed in a clear parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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 four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a family of similar watch.* tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain limit, enrich_sellers, what happens with watch_id=null and all=false, or how results are represented beyond '落盘'. The output schema helps with return shape, but not with invocation decisions.

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 for parameter meaning. It loosely refers to watch_id via '某监控项' and the all flag via '--all', but it does not explain limit, enrich_sellers, or the interaction between watch_id and all when both are default/null.

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 names a specific action — immediately perform a search for a monitored item and write results to disk — which clearly distinguishes it from generic or passive watch tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like watch.start or watch.job, but the one-shot, execution-oriented wording is substantially informative.

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 implies an on-demand, one-time execution and mentions the --all mode, but it gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over watch.start, watch.job, or watch.list. It also does not state prerequisites such as whether a watch_id is needed or what 'enabled items' means.

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