Get Monitor Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the read-only nature through 'Retrieves', specifies the output fields, and notes filtering capabilities. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, permission requirements, or edge cases, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with 'START HERE' and uses compact, informative sentences. It covers usage, return content, and filtering in a structured way without unnecessary repetition. It is slightly verbose but still efficient for its subject.

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, the description does not need to explain return values in depth, yet it still lists key fields. It provides invocation context, intended use cases, and filter capabilities, making it fairly complete for a read-only status tool with optional filters. A minor gap is the lack of mention of response size or pagination, but this is not critical given the context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter (tags, type, active, status, keywords, maintenance) having a detailed description. The description's summary of filtering adds no new information beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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's function: it retrieves current status for all monitors, listing specific states (UP/DOWN/PENDING/MAINTENANCE) and the most recent heartbeat message. It also establishes itself as the primary tool for status overviews, distinguishing it from siblings like listMonitors or getMonitor, which focus on monitor lists or individual monitor details.

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 gives concrete examples of when to use the tool ('how is everything doing?', 'what's down?', 'what's up?') and explicitly says 'START HERE' for status overview questions. While it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the examples and positioning provide clear usage context.

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