aga_start_monitoring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'behavioral monitoring' but doesn't disclose what monitoring entails (e.g., logs alerts, blocks actions), whether it's destructive to existing data, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. 'Start or restart' implies mutation but lacks behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely controls system behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Start or restart behavioral monitoring') and adds necessary context ('with a new baseline'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (behavioral monitoring control), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what monitoring does, how it interacts with other tools (e.g., 'aga_measure_behavior'), or what happens upon execution. For a mutation tool with rich parameter structure, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'with a new baseline,' which hints at the 'behavioral_baseline' parameter but doesn't explain its structure or semantics (e.g., what 'permitted_tools' or 'forbidden_sequences' mean). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for low coverage without fully compensating.

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 action ('Start or restart behavioral monitoring') and the resource ('with a new baseline'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aga_measure_behavior' or 'aga_trigger_measurement' by focusing on initialization/restart rather than ongoing measurement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether monitoring must be stopped first), when to restart versus start fresh, or which sibling tools (like 'aga_measure_behavior' for ongoing tracking) serve complementary purposes. Without any usage context, this scores low.

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