Sb3 Vm Monitors

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

The description discloses useful behavioral scope: it returns the full monitor table including hidden entries and lists the output fields, and it notes the call is proxied. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or explain what 'proxied' means, leaving some of the behavioral burden unmet.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the main scope and output fields immediately. The parentheticals add relevant detail without unnecessary filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description conveys the essential information: what is returned and the scope. The meaning of 'monitor' and 'mode' is left implicit, but the output schema can fill those gaps, so the incompleteness is minor.

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 input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to elaborate on. The field list is still helpful for understanding what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 identifies the subject as a monitor table and enumerates the returned fields (label, opcode, value, mode), including hidden monitors. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling VM introspection tools like sb3_vm_state or sb3_vm_threads.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sb3_vm_* siblings, such as sb3_vm_state or sb3_vm_watch. The parenthetical '(proxied)' hints at execution context but gives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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