Kooperativa: list monitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is read-only, workspace-scoped, and filters to active monitors, which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or how it behaves when no monitors exist, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence says exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It names the resource, the filter, and the auth scope, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so there is nothing to document. The description still adds useful context by specifying the workspace scope and active-monitor filter, which is more than the empty schema 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 states a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('webhook monitors'), and a scope ('active' and 'authenticated workspace'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_monitor and delete_monitor by being the read-only listing operation.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieve active webhook monitors for the current workspace. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the sibling names and the 'list' framing provide enough context for an agent to select it for read/monitoring scenarios.

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