cron-monitor

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

Without annotations, the description discloses two behavioral details: it requires an API key and returns a monitor ID for ping URLs. However, it doesn't disclose idempotency, side effects, or error behavior, which are expected for a create tool.

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 primary action, no redundant language.

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 essential creation purpose and return value, but with no output schema, it leaves out error handling and post-creation workflow details. It's adequate for a simple CRUD-style tool but not fully complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the API key requirement.

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 the action (register) and object (cron job monitor), distinguishes from sibling read/ping tools by its creation semantics, and mentions the key output (monitor ID).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (registering a new monitor), and the API key requirement is a usage prerequisite. Doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the creation role among siblings is unambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the API key requirement and the response content, implying a read-only GET operation, but does not explicitly state safety (read-only), rate limits, or error handling. The API key note provides some transparency beyond the schema, but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get an overview') and efficiently lists key outputs. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the return content (status counts and summary list) for a simple tool. It does not specify pagination or formatting, but for an overview tool this is likely sufficient. The tool's simplicity and single parameter make the description reasonably complete.

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% for the single api_key parameter, so the description adds no extra semantic meaning. The description's 'Requires API key' merely reinforces the schema, providing no additional syntax or usage detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get an overview of all cron monitors' with specific output details (total count, counts per status, summary list). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_monitor_status and list_monitors, which focus on individual monitors or full lists.

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 usage for high-level monitoring overviews but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_monitors or get_monitor_status. It only notes the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values (status, last ping time, ping count) but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, permissions, or rate limits. Even though 'Get' implies read-only, this is not explicitly stated and no additional behavioral context is added.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant output details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and key return fields. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or additional context, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter monitor_id, and the schema already describes it as 'Monitor ID to check'. The description adds minimal extra meaning (referring to 'specific cron monitor'), which does not significantly extend beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool gets the current status (up/down/grace/new) of a specific cron monitor, along with last ping time and total ping count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_monitors (which lists monitors) and get_ping_history (which retrieves historical pings).

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 usage for checking the status of a specific monitor by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_monitors or get_dashboard. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, but the singular 'specific' suggests a targeted query.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the limit (last 100), event fields, and API key requirement, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior, pagination, or what happens for incomplete events beyond implying they lack duration.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes key context (limit, fields, auth). Every word earns its place, with no unrelated fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides decent context: what is retrieved, the event fields, the limit, and the API key requirement. Minor gaps remain regarding error handling, sorting, and clarification of 'complete events', but it is largely sufficient for a low-complexity 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that the monitor_id is for a monitor and the API key is required. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the last 100 ping events for a monitor with specific fields (type, timestamp, IP, duration). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_monitor_status (current status) and ping_monitor (triggering a ping), as it focuses on historical event data.

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 usage for retrieving historical ping events but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use ping_monitor to create a ping' or 'use get_monitor_status for current status'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the real-time computed nature and the API key requirement, but does not mention side effects, return format, or rate limits. For a list operation, the lack of destructive concern is implicit but not stated.

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 clear sentence that leads with the core action and includes only necessary information, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description adequately conveys the main function and return concept (all monitors with their status). It does not over-explain, and the lack of pagination details is acceptable for this scope.

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?

The schema already describes api_key at 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'Requires API key' aligns with the schema's required field but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool lists all monitors and includes real-time computed status, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor_status, which likely handles a single monitor.

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 context (lists all monitors) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_monitor_status or other siblings. It mentions the API key requirement but no exclusions or alternatives.

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

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 adds value by explaining the consequences of using 'fail' (immediately mark it down) and the structured start/complete flow for duration tracking. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but the tool is simple and the description covers the key behavioral differences among ping types.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy with the schema while efficiently conveying usage scenarios.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the primary use case, parameter semantics, and special behavior (fail). It does not describe the response format or error handling, but these are not critical for a simple ping tool and are not covered by any structured fields.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions and an enum for ping_type (schema coverage 100%). The description enhances the schema by explaining the semantic meaning of each ping_type value (simple heartbeat, duration tracking, failure signal), which goes beyond the enum labels and makes the tool more usable.

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 tool's function: 'Send a heartbeat ping to a cron monitor to confirm the job ran successfully.' It identifies the specific resource (cron monitor) and action (send heartbeat ping), and the sibling tools (create_monitor, get_monitor_status, etc.) show this is distinct for pinging.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different ping_type values: 'Use ping_type="ping" for simple heartbeats, "start"+"complete" for duration tracking, or "fail" to immediately mark it down.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and action are clear enough that such contrast is unnecessary for basic selection.

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