get_monitor_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Returns' clearly frames this as a read-only query, and 'when available' sets correct expectations about optional fields. It does not detail failure behavior, but that is minor for a simple state getter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds useful information about the tool's output and optional availability of fields.

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 parameterless getter with an output schema, this description is mostly complete: it names the core state fields and the availability qualifier. It falls slightly short by not contrasting with wait_for_state or explicitly confirming that it is non-blocking and non-mutating.

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 zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Instead, the description enriches the response semantics by naming stop reason and program counter, which helps an agent know what the tool provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies a precise resource: whether the C64 is running or stopped, along with stop reason and program counter. This clearly separates it from sibling getters like get_registers and get_session_state, so an agent can recognize its role immediately.

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 implies the tool is for querying current C64 monitor state, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over wait_for_state or get_session_state, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implicit rather than explicit.

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