monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states 'Never interrupts it' and 'just listens to the board's console,' disclosing the read-only, passive nature. It also explains the timeout behavior with 'returns early if it ends,' adding useful behavioral detail beyond the bare schema.

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 two efficient sentences that front-load the main purpose and then clarify non-interruption and standalone use. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and key behavioral traits. It does not mention edge cases such as what happens when no program is running, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 schema gives only a type for seconds with no description, so the description compensates by defining its meaning: 'for up to `seconds` (default 5, returns early if it ends).' This adds a default value and behavioral guarantee, though it could also clarify constraints like minimum or maximum values.

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: 'Read what the running program prints.' This clearly identifies the tool as a console-output listener and distinguishes it from siblings like start, exec, and run_file, which initiate execution, and read, which likely reads files.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to observe output without interrupting the running program, and notes it works even when Thonny is closed for main.py running standalone. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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