listMonitors

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. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it returns all monitors at once (vs. paginated), what data fields are included, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements beyond 'authenticated team'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a list'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a list operation. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., array of monitor objects, pagination details), nor does it address behavioral aspects like error handling or performance constraints. For a tool with zero structured metadata, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('all monitors for the authenticated team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMonitor' (singular) or 'listIncidentsByMonitor', which could cause confusion about when to choose this specific list operation.

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 like 'getMonitor' (for a single monitor) or 'listIncidentsByMonitor' (for incidents filtered by monitor). It mentions the scope ('for the authenticated team'), but offers no explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites for usage.

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