list_monitor_rule_evaluations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions pagination and the 'only_matched' filter, but lacks details on default pagination behavior, ordering, permissions, or what happens on empty results. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, uses bullet points for clarity, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous text.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential information about filters and purpose. It could mention pagination parameters more explicitly, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each filter (rule_type, region, only_matched, from_/to) with examples and semantics. Missing details for page and size, but these are standard pagination parameters.

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 'List' and the resource 'rule evaluations for a monitor', and provides a concrete use case example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_monitor_results by specifying rule evaluations.

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 gives a clear use case and lists applicable filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_monitor_results. Context is clear without exclusions.

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