list_subscription_monitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation ('List all registered scheduled monitors') with no mention of read-only nature, pagination, order, or potential side effects. The name implies a read operation, but the description itself adds no safety or behavioral context beyond the action.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words (six words total). It is appropriately minimal for a parameterless list tool and gets straight to the point without extraneous detail.

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?

The tool is very simple (no params) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the core function clearly, but it lacks differentiation from the similar 'get_subscription_monitor' and provides no usage context. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap, so the description is nearly complete.

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 the input schema is empty. The description implies that no arguments are needed, which aligns with the schema. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details because there are none to explain.

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 the resource 'all registered scheduled monitors', making its purpose unambiguous. It is concise and uses specific language, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_subscription_monitor'. The word 'all' implies listing versus retrieving a single monitor, but that distinction is not made 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_subscription_monitor' or how it relates to other monitor management tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional context for tool selection.

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