monitoring_get_config

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior beyond the verb 'Get'. It fails to mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the configuration is system-wide or scoped. Users cannot assess safety or preconditions.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it sacrifices necessary detail. 'Get monitoring configuration' is three words that add no information beyond the tool name. True conciseness would front-load critical context within a few sentences, not omit all details.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is glaringly incomplete. It does not answer what the tool returns, how to use it, or any constraints. The tool is unusable based on 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'region' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical omission. An agent has no guidance on what values to provide for region.

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 'Get monitoring configuration' essentially restates the tool name with only minor rewording. It lacks specificity about what type of monitoring configuration is retrieved (e.g., global settings vs instance-specific), making it hard to distinguish from similar 'get_config' tools like logging_get_config.

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?

No instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives like monitoring_list_instances, or any prerequisites such as having a monitoring instance. The description provides no decision context.

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