ipc_monitor

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint true and readOnlyHint false. Description adds that it captures invoke() calls and responses, and requires driver_session. This enriches understanding without contradicting annotations.

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, each essential. Front-loaded constraint and context. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but as a start/stop tool, the description covers key context: Tauri-only, prerequisite, function. Could mention what happens after starting, but sibling ipc_get_captured handles retrieval.

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 100% with descriptions for both params. Description adds valuable default behavior for appIdentifier (defaults to only connected app). No redundancy.

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?

Description clearly states it monitors Tauri IPC calls between frontend and Rust backend, specifies Tauri-only context, and distinguishes from browser monitoring via Chrome DevTools MCP. Verb and resource are precise.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite (active driver_session), target audience (Tauri apps), and provides alternative for browser network monitoring (Chrome DevTools MCP). Guidance on when to use vs not is clear.

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