invariance_monitor_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the visibility scope ('visible to calling agent') which is not in annotations, and mentions pagination. However, it does not explain what fields the list returns or whether the list is ordered or limited by default. Since annotations cover safety, this 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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core function (List monitors) and the scope (visible to calling agent). The pagination note is appended compactly. No fluff or redundant details.

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 simple paginated list tool with annotations covering read-only safety, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could mention whether the list is sorted or if there are default limits, but the output schema is absent so the return format is unknown. Overall, adequate for a straightforward list operation given the available structured data.

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 50%: the 'limit' parameter has no description, but the schema provides type and maximum constraints. The 'cursor' parameter has a description explaining its purpose and usage. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves. With half the parameters documented in schema and the other half self-explanatory, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists monitors visible to the calling agent, and mentions pagination. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like invariance_monitor_get or invariance_run_list.

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 implies the tool is for listing monitors visible to the current agent, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. There are many related tools (e.g., invariance_monitor_get for single monitor, invariance_monitor_executions for executions), but the description does not mention alternatives or when to prefer this one.

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