monday_query_data

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context that the tool can claim a read or write effect, that Spring verifies the effect, and that a write may resume with an approval_ref. However, it does not explain what destructive behavior is possible, what verification failure looks like, or how approval interacts with execution.

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: identification line, routing constraint, then a compact parameter list. Each parameter gets a single-line gloss and there is no filler or redundant prose.

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?

Although an output schema exists, this is a generic connector passthrough with seven loosely documented parameters and no required fields. The description does not explain the Monday query payload format, how to choose between read and write effects, when approval is mandatory, or what the returned data shape is. An agent would struggle to construct a correct first call from this description alone.

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 0%, so the description is the only documentation for all seven parameters. It adds short semantic labels such as 'Authenticated Project UUID', 'Stable business-action identity', and 'Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it', which is helpful. Yet it fails to specify valid effect values, what the arguments JSON should contain, which parameters are needed for reads versus writes, or how approval_ref conditions the call.

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 opens by restating the tool name as 'Monday connector operation `query_data` (platform tool `monday.query_data`)' rather than explaining what the operation actually does. It never states that it queries Monday.com data, what kind of data can be queried, or how it differs from sibling tools like monday_get_item, monday_list_items, or monday_search_items.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternative tools. It mentions governance routing and approval for writes, but an agent cannot determine when to select this tool over the many other monday_* tools or the domain-specific query tools like notion_query_data or crm_query_data.

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