list_monitored

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

Description lists the fields returned (names, IDs, package counts, registration dates). As there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides useful behavioral context about output. However, it does not mention read-only nature or potential limitations like pagination.

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 accurate sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value. Exceptionally concise.

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 simple nature (no parameters, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers purpose and output fields. It could mention that it returns all projects without filtering, but overall complete for this tool.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so parameter semantics are moot. The description adds no new parameter info but none is needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 the tool lists all projects registered for vulnerability monitoring. It distinguishes from siblings like check_alerts, monitor_project, etc., which perform different actions. Verb and resource are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its usage for listing monitored projects but does not mention when not to use it or offer comparisons to siblings.

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