Get Monitor Summary

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

The description discloses an important behavioral nuance: the status may be stale for push monitors that have stopped beating, and advises checking lastBeatTime. It also explains the UTC format without a zone marker. This adds transparency beyond the schema, which has no 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 overly wordy and repetitive. It repeats the same information multiple times: the first sentence introduces the purpose, the second repeats the retrieval of status, the third gives usage, the fourth lists return fields, the fifth lists filters, and the sixth and seventh repeat the staleness warning. This could be condensed significantly for clarity.

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?

The description is fairly complete: it lists the returned fields (ID, name, pathName, active state, maintenance state, status, message, lastBeatTime, type, tags), explains the filter capabilities, and includes the important staleness warning. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a summary tool, the key aspects are covered.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the filter options (keywords, type, active/maintenance status, tags, parent group, current status) without adding new examples or clarifications beyond what the schema provides.

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 current status for all monitors with UP/DOWN/PENDING/MAINTENANCE states and includes the most recent heartbeat message. It distinguishes itself by being a summary/overview tool, explicitly marked as 'START HERE' for status questions, which contrasts with sibling tools like getMonitor or listMonitors.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use this when asked "how is everything doing?", "what's down?", "what's up?", or for any general status overview.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives, it does position itself as the primary entry point for status queries.

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