get-monitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. For a list operation, this is 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 very concise with three sentences. It front-loads the main action, provides examples, and directs to the sibling tool. No extraneous information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers core purpose and usage but omits details on return format, pagination, and behavior of all parameters. It is functional but not fully complete for a listing tool with 4 parameters.

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. It adds meaning for groupStates by listing possible values, but tags, monitorTags, and limit are not described beyond the schema examples. The limit parameter's default is not mentioned. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 'List Datadog monitors with filtering' and distinguishes from sibling 'get-monitor' by noting it is for a single monitor's full details. The verb 'list' and resource 'monitors' are specific, and the differentiation from the alternative tool is explicit.

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 explicit usage examples like 'show alerting monitors' and 'monitors tagged with team:platform', and advises to use 'get-monitor' for single monitor details. This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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