firecrawl_monitor_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description confirms a read operation but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, data freshness). No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short (one line plus example) and to the point, but the example is valuable. Could be more efficient if parameter details were in the schema.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits pagination details, default ordering, and what the response contains. The usage example partially compensates but isn't sufficient.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters beyond the example. The agent gains no understanding of their meaning or constraints from the description.

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 ('list') and resource ('monitors'), and implies scope ('all'). It differentiates from sibling tools like firecrawl_monitor_get by implying a list operation, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar verbs (e.g., firecrawl_monitor_check).

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 a usage example but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as firecrawl_monitor_get or firecrawl_monitor_create. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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