vs_monitors_uptime

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states that the tool fetches data, implying a read operation, but fails to disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, permission requirements, or response size. Minimal behavioral insight is provided.

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 of 14 words, tightly focused on the core functionality. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous 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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately hints at return values (uptime percentage and outage breakdown). It covers the essential purpose and default behavior. However, it could mention read-only nature or data source to be more complete, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by linking the window parameter to the default value ('default last 30 days'), but the schema already specifies this. No additional semantic context for the id parameter is given beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource 'uptime percentage and outage breakdown for a monitor'. It also mentions the default window, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vs_monitors_get (full details) and vs_monitors_list (list of monitors).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs_monitors_get for detailed monitor info, vs_monitors_check_now for immediate check). No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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