Monitor Metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '查询' implies a read operation and the enumerated metrics hint at output content, but there is no disclosure of auth/session requirements, read-only safety, or rate/scope limits. It adds some context without covering the safety profile an agent would want for a hub tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the metric glossary second. The metric list slightly repeats the schema enum, but it earns its place by explaining what each metric measures.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description need not explain parameters or return values, and it supplies a clear purpose plus a metric glossary. It is nearly complete for the structured data available; the only real gap is the missing relationship to the specialized monitor_* siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the same metric names as the enum, though it usefully adds meaning (storeSpeed=storage throughput) that the bare enum lacks. It adds nothing about host/port/scheme/profile, which the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: batch-query monitoring data by metric name, and frames itself as the 'gen 通用入口' (generic entry point). It even enumerates the four supported metrics, which no sibling name reveals. It stops short of naming the specialized siblings (monitor_cpu, monitor_memory, monitor_network) it overlaps with, so the distinction is only implied.

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?

'批量查询' (batch query) and '通用入口' imply this tool is for pulling several metrics in one call, which is a usage hint. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over monitor_cpu/monitor_memory/monitor_network, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is left to inference.

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