get_integrity_monitor_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool queries status, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data. For a status query, this is minimal but not misleading; it lacks substantive behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. The parenthetical business requirement adds a minor extra but does not significantly dilute clarity. It is efficient, though the parenthetical could be considered non-essential.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., boolean, detailed progress report), what possible values exist, or whether the tool returns anything beyond deployment progress. With no parameters, it could easily have clarified the return semantics. This is incomplete for an agent needing accurate call outcomes.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what is being queried (deployment status), which is useful context even though there is nothing to parameterize. No extra parameter semantics are needed.

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' - query) and resource (Integrity Monitor deployment status for monitors/watchlists). It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_integrity_monitor_monitors or get_integrity_monitor_watchlists, which likely list items rather than report deployment status.

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 alternatives. It includes a parenthetical business requirement but no context about prerequisites, timing, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer that this is for checking deployment progress, but no explicit when/when-not guidance exists.

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