monitors_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavioral details: results are ordered most recent first, capped at 50, scoped to the caller's own monitor, and include webhook delivery status per run. That is strong transparency for a read operation, though it does not discuss failure modes or response format.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs in ordering, count cap, ownership scope, and returned payload details. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and simple list behavior, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, ordering, limit, and included status information. It could mention what happens when no check history exists or clarify the id ownership requirement, but those are minor gaps for this low-complexity tool.

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 the schema already defines 'id' as 'Monitor id.' The description adds some ownership nuance by saying the caller's own monitor is returned, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameter format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List a monitor's check history.' It further distinguishes the operation by noting it returns the caller's own monitor's runs and includes webhook delivery status, which separates it from sibling tools like monitors_get and monitors_list.

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 usage by stating this returns the caller's own monitor's check history, which clarifies the ownership scope. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over monitors_list, monitors_get, or any alternative, leaving the selection to inference.

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