monitor_fault_devices

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

The description only states that a list is retrieved. With no annotations provided, there is no disclosure of behavior beyond the basic query action—such as whether it relies on a selected site context, authentication requirements, result limits, or ordering. The description carries the full burden and provides minimal behavioral context.

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, clear, and front-loaded sentence that explains exactly what the tool returns without any filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list retrieval tool, the description adequately communicates the returned entity type (fault/abnormal measurement devices). Some details such as output fields or scope are missing, but the low complexity and lack of parameters make the description reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema contains no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 tool retrieves a list of measurement devices judged to be in a fault or abnormal state ('고장·이상 상태로 판정된 측정기 목록을 조회한다'). This is a specific verb + resource and is distinct among siblings, none of which explicitly target faulty devices.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like monitor_device_state, monitor_search, or other monitoring tools. The intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but there are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.

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