Get Monitor

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

With no annotations, the description discloses default return behavior (common fields plus runtime data) and the effect of includeTypeSpecificFields. It does not mention includeSecrets' impact on logs, but that is covered in the schema's parameter description, so it adds sufficient value beyond annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance and field behavior. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, the description covers the tool's purpose, appropriate use, and optional field behavior thoroughly. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that.

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 already provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds concrete examples for includeTypeSpecificFields (url for HTTP, hostname/port for TCP), improving clarity 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 clearly states it retrieves configuration details for a specific monitor by ID, listing examples like URL and check interval. It distinguishes itself from getMonitorSummary by noting that getMonitorSummary is for current status.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you need to examine or modify settings' and provides an alternative: 'For current status, use getMonitorSummary instead.' It also gives guidance on when to set includeTypeSpecificFields to true.

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