firecrawl_monitor_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits, or data freshness).

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 brief (one line plus a code block) but lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is acceptable but at the expense of completeness.

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?

With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description does not explain return format, pagination, or error handling. Incomplete for a listing tool with sibling complexity.

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%. The description only shows a usage example with limit, but does not explain the meaning or valid values of limit and offset parameters. Does not compensate for lack of schema documentation.

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 action (list) and resource (Firecrawl monitors) with scope (authenticated account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like firecrawl_monitor_get or firecrawl_monitor_create.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative monitor tools (e.g., firecrawl_monitor_get for a single monitor). Only a usage example with limit is provided, but no context or exclusions.

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