get-monitor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states returns 'complete monitor definition' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects. Minimum viable for a simple get operation, but could be more explicit about no mutation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, followed by usage context. Every word earns its place. No wasted 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage sequence, and return content. No additional information needed.

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 coverage is 0% and description only says 'by ID' which adds little beyond schema. The parameter monitorId is a number with no format or source hints. Description could have explained how to obtain the ID from get-monitors, but does not. Minimal semantic help.

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 'Get', the resource 'full details for a specific monitor by ID', and differentiates from sibling 'get-monitors' by specifying it is a follow-up drill-down. It also mentions return content: configuration, thresholds, query, current state.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use after get-monitors to dive deeper into a specific monitor's configuration...' This clearly indicates it is intended as a follow-up step after listing monitors. While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, the context is sufficient for an AI agent.

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