monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does admirably: it declares read-only behavior, 'without seeking', the return of a job id, progress lines as readout, and cancel semantics. These go well beyond the sparse schema and make side effects predictable.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds useful information: read-only, no seeking, cadence, job lifecycle, and windows semantics.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers the operational lifecycle, cadence, and termination condition. Nothing needed to invoke or stop monitoring correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains action ('start'/'stop'), interval_bars (capture interval), and windows (=0 runs until stopped). Each parameter receives meaningful semantic context that is absent from the schema.

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 precise verb-resource pair: it provides a 'live readout' of 'distance and gaps against the target' while playing. It also clarifies the read-only nature and the start/stop job model, which distinguishes it from one-shot siblings like 'measure' or 'compare'.

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 clear operational context: use it 'while you play', run continuously with windows=0, and stop via the 'stop' action. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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