cronalert-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds that it retrieves 'detailed information' and 'current status', which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific monitor') and adds key specifics ('including its current status'). There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what information is retrieved but lacks details on output format or error handling. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Monitor ID'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('monitor'), specifying it provides 'detailed information' and 'current status'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_monitors' by focusing on a single monitor, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_check_results' or 'get_monitor_incidents' which might provide related data.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_monitor' over 'list_monitors' for overviews, or how it differs from 'get_check_results' or 'get_monitor_incidents' for related monitor data. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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