monitor_changes

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior: entries represent differences from the previous check and include a diff/summary, plus an AI summary when aiMode is on. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then detail about entries and the prerequisite. 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?

Given a single parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (monitor_list first) and the meaning of entries. Minor missing details like pagination or error behavior are not critical for correct invocation.

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 already fully describes the id parameter (coverage 100%), including its source. The description only reiterates the need to get the id from monitor_list first, which is more usage guidance than new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb 'Get', a resource 'changes for a monitor', and defines entries as recordings of content differences from previous checks. It clearly differentiates from sibling monitor_list/monitor_create by focusing on change history.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call monitor_list first to obtain the monitor id, giving a clear prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is unambiguous for a read-only retrieval tool.

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