List Monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the cross-tool purpose, but says nothing about the hidden-monitor behavior or result volume, which is a modest but not severe gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse but earns its place by pointing at a sibling workflow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations carry the read-only safety signal. For a zero-required-parameter lister, the definition is adequate, with only the include_hidden semantics left entirely to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so include_hidden is already documented with its default in the schema. The parenthetical field list describes output, not the parameter, so the description adds no meaning beyond the structured field; 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the monitors on this Kener instance') and even enumerates the fields returned (tag, name, status, type, category). It partially differentiates from siblings by tying the output to create_incident, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with list_incidents.

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 line 'Use the tags with create_incident' gives one concrete downstream use case, implying when an agent would call this tool. However, it offers no when-not guidance and doesn't compare against sibling tools like list_incidents, leaving selection largely to inference.

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