Get Monitor

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

The description explains default output (common fields plus runtime data) and the effect of includeTypeSpecificFields, giving insight into behavior. It implicitly indicates read-only retrieval, though it does not explicitly state permissions or side effects; however, the retrieval wording is sufficient.

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, with clear sentence structure: action, usage, alternative, and parameter behavior. No filler or redundancy, and it remains within a reasonable length.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not detail return structure. It covers default fields, optional inclusion, and the relationship to getMonitorSummary, providing sufficient context for correct usage.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly explaining includeTypeSpecificFields with examples (url for HTTP, hostname/port for TCP) and its default behavior. It does not mention includeSecrets, but the schema already provides a description for that parameter, so the description adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool retrieves configuration details for a specific monitor by ID, listing example fields (URL, check interval, notification settings). It also distinguishes from getMonitorSummary for current status, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you need to examine or modify settings for a specific monitor' and 'For current status, use getMonitorSummary instead,' offering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an alternative.

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