firestarter_watches

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 covered. The description adds some useful context about what the tool returns (last check status, recent price changes, alerts), but it does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, result limits, or how 'recent' is defined.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the supporting detail about what the list shows is compact and directly useful. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content: active monitors, last check status, price changes, and alerts. It could be more explicit about filtering via monitor_id or the include_checks default, but those are already documented in the schema, so the description is adequately complete.

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%, so both monitor_id and include_checks are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List active monitors and their recent check results.' It clearly states the tool's scope (active monitors) and what it surfaces (last check status, price changes, alerts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like firestarter_watch or firestarter_unwatch without needing to name them.

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 the tool is for viewing monitors but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With many sibling tools like firestarter_check, firestarter_status, and firestarter_watch, more routing context would help an agent select this tool confidently.

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