monitor_mrm_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool returns MRM state and active behaviors, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly declare non-destructiveness, performance characteristics, or whether it triggers any side effects. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no fluff. The action ('Monitor') is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and return value.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete for full context. It does not explain what 'MRM' stands for, which could be essential for an agent. Among many monitor siblings, a brief definition would improve completeness. However, the return description is clear.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description naturally adds no parameter details. This is acceptable since no parameters exist. The baseline score of 4 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 monitors current MRM state and returns state plus active behaviors. The verb 'monitor' and resource 'MRM state' are specific. However, 'MRM' is not defined, which may cause ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_mrm_behaviors' and 'monitor_localization_state' by focusing on state rather than behaviors or other subsystems.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_mrm_behaviors' or 'monitor_motion_state'. There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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