Get Monitor List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's in the annotations. It does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or related status flags that might be expected, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the main action. There is no wordiness or redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is adequately complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (monitor info) without needing extra explanation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which is a special case. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema (which is empty) by specifying the output domain (monitors and their information).

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 states the tool gets a list of connected monitors and information about them, which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools generally oriented around scenes, sources, and outputs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies it's used to retrieve monitor information for display or configuration, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like obs-get-virtual-cam-status or obs-get-output-list. No exclusions or alternative names are provided, making 'when to use' only implicit.

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