Monitor Warnings

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, yet it discloses nothing about read-only behavior, authentication/session requirements, filtering, or whether warnings are live versus historical. "查看" weakly implies a read, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded phrase with zero padding, but for a tool with four optional connection parameters and no annotations it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and no usage or behavioral detail the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether this is a live-read or cached query, what session/profile it needs, or how it relates to the beep and metrics monitoring tools.

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 host, port, scheme, and profile are fully documented in the schema (host address, port examples, protocol, session profile). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"查看系统告警" gives a verb (view) and a resource (system warnings), which is slightly more specific than the name's "monitor". However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as monitor_beep_events or monitor_metrics. Clear but minimal.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or auth note, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is left to infer that this surfaces alert/warning data from context alone.

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