twitter_monitor_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting the call is 'Free per call' and by listing the specific status fields returned, which helps the agent anticipate the response shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then enumerates the returned fields and the dashboard use case. No filler or redundant content; each word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, purpose, and cost. It could mention error conditions or how the 'possibly-missed-event count' is computed, but the level of detail is adequate for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including its provenance from twitter_monitor_create or twitter_monitor_list. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter detail, so the schema carries the semantic burden; 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('one monitor's current status') plus enumerates the fields returned (degradation flag, poll interval, possibly-missed-event count, cursor position). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like twitter_monitor_list (all monitors) and twitter_monitor_account_health (account-level health).

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 phrase 'for building your own health dashboard' provides a clear use case, and 'one monitor' signals this is for single-monitor checks rather than bulk listing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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