list_monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not say whether inactive/disabled monitors are included, what order results come in, or whether it can return empty.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned attributes are packed into the same clause rather than a separate bullet list. 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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-covered lister with no output schema, knowing the returned fields is the main missing piece and the description supplies it. Minor gaps around scope (all monitors vs. connected only) and ordering keep it from 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List all monitors') with the enumerated attributes returned (resolution, refresh rate, scale, position). It is distinguishable from get_focused_monitor and the mutation siblings (set_monitor_scale, enable_monitor, mirror_monitor), though it never names them explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_focused_monitor or the monitor-configuration tools, and no prerequisites. The only inference available is that a lister precedes set_monitor_scale/mirror_monitor, which the description never says.

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