neuron_watch_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool polls at a configurable interval, accumulates changes over time, and runs as a watch until explicitly stopped. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the input schema, though it does not mention potential resource usage or behavior across page navigations.

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?

Three short sentences convey the action, the polling behavior, and the companion tools for checking and stopping. The information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description covers the core lifecycle: start, check, stop. Since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to clarify what a 'change' entry looks like or whether the watch persists across navigations, but the tool is adequately scoped for an agent to invoke it correctly and know where to get results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tabId, selector, and intervalMs. The description adds 'configurable interval' and names the watched resource, but does not add meaningfully beyond the existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Start watching'), a specific resource ('a CSS selector'), and the change types tracked (text, visibility, attributes). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the related get_watches and stop_watch siblings by describing the full lifecycle.

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 provides clear lifecycle guidance: use neuron_get_watches to check for accumulated changes and neuron_stop_watch to stop watching. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus DOM query siblings like neuron_query_dom or neuron_find_elements, but the polling/accumulation model is stated clearly enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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