get_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only restates the fetch action and the lookup key, failing to mention output format, error handling, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. This provides no guidance beyond the tool's name.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is maximally 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?

With one simple required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate to identify the operation. However, it lacks detail about the return structure or any special behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 schema defines monitor_id as a string with no description, and the tool description only says 'by id,' adding no meaningful context. With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to explain the parameter but did not.

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 'Get a single monitor by id' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the operation returns one monitor. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_monitors (which lists) and create/update/delete monitors.

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 when to use the tool: to fetch a specific monitor when its ID is known. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear for a straightforward getter.

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