monitoring_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior, and it does contribute two real facts: the operation is read-only and the Groovy execution is tenant-scoped. It omits cost/risk context that matters here — e.g., whether a thread dump is expensive or blocking, and what the response shape looks like.

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 safety constraint ('Read-only.') front-loaded before the resource description. No filler, though the trailing 'via tenant-safe Groovy' is an implementation detail that takes space without changing how the agent calls the tool.

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-param optional tool this is close, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least sketch the return format for each section (structured metrics vs. raw text dump). As written, an agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 0% and the single enum param is otherwise undocumented, so the description carries the full burden. It does compensate by mapping each enum value to a meaning ('dump' → thread-dump, plus cluster/memory/threads/cache), though it never states the default of 'memory' or what each section contains.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('diagnostics'), and enumerates the five concrete sections it can deliver, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like config_get or beans_info, but the diagnostics framing is distinct enough to separate it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated sections hint that this is the tool for cluster/memory/thread/cache inspection, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'prefer config_get for...' guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to pick a sibling instead.

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