getMonitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get details for a specific monitor') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured monitor details. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, response format, or potential side effects. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The ID of the monitor to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format, sourcing, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific monitor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like listMonitors by specifying retrieval of a single monitor rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'details' include or differentiate from other get-like tools like getIncident.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a monitor ID), contrast with listMonitors for browsing, or specify scenarios where detailed monitor information is required versus summary data from listing tools.

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