get_integrity_monitor_monitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains what is retrieved but does not mention pagination, sorting, default behavior beyond what is in the schema, authentication requirements, or any side effects. As a read operation, the absence of explicit safety information is a gap given zero annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes relevant details about the returned items. It is concise and avoids filler, though it could arguably be more structured by separating the work-requirement note. Nevertheless, it earns high marks for efficiency.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It does not mention pagination mechanics beyond the schema default, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but given the minimal complexity, the missing pieces are not critical. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100% because the only parameter 'first' is fully described in the schema (count, default 20, max 50). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Under high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic value is given.

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 states a specific verb ('조회' – retrieve) and resource ('Integrity Monitor 모니터 목록' – list of Integrity Monitor monitors), and enumerates the content (scan settings, priority, target computer groups). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_integrity_monitor_status and get_integrity_monitor_watchlists, which address different aspects of integrity monitoring.

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 its siblings. The appended '(업무요건: 무결성 모니터링 정책 현황)' hints at a use case but does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_integrity_monitor_status or get_integrity_monitor_watchlists. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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