monitor_properties

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about sampling over frames and returning a series. This goes beyond annotations by specifying temporal behavior. However, it does not detail performance impacts or error handling.

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 efficient sentences: first states action, second states return. No redundant or filler content. Every word adds value.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and return type for a simple tool, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., node not found), the format of the sample series, and blocking behavior. Without an output schema, more detail on return structure would be helpful.

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 description covers the high-level semantics of all four parameters (path, property, samples, interval) by mentioning 'node's property' and 'over several frames', but provides no detailed format, constraints, or examples. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description offers moderate compensation.

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 'sample', the resource 'node's property', and the scope 'over several frames (detect movement/changes)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like runtime_get_property which reads a single value.

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 implies usage for detecting changes over time but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like runtime_get_property or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit directives.

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