monitors_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully reveals read-only behavior ('Get', 'Returns'), scope ('caller's own'), and cost ('Free to call'). However, it omits error behavior for invalid ids, authentication requirements, and any access limitations, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each informative: the action, the return semantics/scope, and the cost. No filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter get-by-id tool, the core call pattern is fully specified. The mention of returning 'one of the caller's own monitors' plus the sibling monitor tools establishes enough context about what is returned. Lacks error/edge-case details, but overall is adequate for a simple getter.

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 100% and the id parameter is already described as 'Monitor id'. The description's 'by id' only confirms the parameter's role without adding format, validation, or source hints. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('website-change monitor'), and clarifies that it returns a single monitor by id. This distinguishes it from monitors_list and the other CRUD siblings without requiring the reader to open the schema.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving one specific existing monitor by id, and 'caller's own' establishes an ownership boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives like monitors_list, but the context is sufficient to infer when to use it.

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