list_monitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'live' and 'currently serving' describe the tool as a read-only operation, which is adequate. However, it doesn't clarify behavior around stopped monitors, sort order, or whether the list is paginated. It's honest and non-deceptive but thin.

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, zero wasted words. It states the resource, the scope ('live', 'currently serving'), and the return value (URLs) all in minimal prose. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what is returned (active monitors + URLs). It could mention that stopped monitors are excluded more explicitly, but the word 'live' carries that meaning adequately.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description clarifies the return payload will include URLs per active monitor, which is useful given there are no inputs to document. For a parameterless tool, this is an acceptable baseline.

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 states the tool lists live monitors currently serving with their URLs, using a specific verb and resource ('list' + 'monitors'). It distinguishes well from siblings like list_sessions, list_boards, and list_recordings which target different resources. The second sentence adds return details (Active monitors and URL) that reinforce 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?

The description implies this is for viewing currently active monitors, and the sibling context (start_monitor, stop_monitor) suggests it pairs with those lifecycle tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over similar list tools, nor does it clarify whether stopped monitors are excluded (which 'live' implies but doesn't confirm).

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