List Monitors

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that a team API key is required and that the output includes last run status and schedule. This provides context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail any potential limits or pagination.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the key functionality, and the second adds a necessary requirement. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, returned data, and authentication requirement. No gaps are apparent.

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 single parameter 'active_only' is fully described in the input schema with a default value and explanation. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('monitors'), the scope ('owned by this API key'), and what is included ('with last run status and schedule'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_monitor_result' which focuses on a single monitor's result.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a team API key') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_resources' or when not to use it. The context from sibling tools helps differentiate, but the description itself lacks comparative guidance.

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