novada_monitor

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds session-scoped state persistence (not persisted across restarts) and details the hash comparison process. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured with bold section headers and bullet points. It is fairly concise, though slightly long, but every section adds distinct value. No redundancy.

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?

The description explains the return type (changed/unchanged + field-level diffs) despite no output schema. It also covers session scoping and the baseline mechanism. Could mention error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 100%, but the description enriches parameters with context: for 'fields', it gives an example with price and availability and mentions percentage change; for 'format', it explains the output difference. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Detect changes on a web page over time' with a specific verb (detect), resource (web page), and temporal scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like novada_extract and novada_crawl by specifying what it is not for.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (e.g., price monitoring, stock tracking) and explicitly states when not to use (one-time extraction, full crawl) with alternatives. Also explains the baseline and comparison workflow, giving clear context for invocation.

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