List monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with the auth scope requirement and the concrete return fields, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or pagination for a tool that returns 'every monitor'.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the access prerequisite is front-loaded before the behavior and the filter. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the auth requirement is stated. The only gap is the absence of pagination, result-size, or ordering details for a list-everything tool, which is minor for a project-scoped listing.

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%, so the sole parameter 'tag' is fully documented in the schema. The description's note that 'tag narrows the list to monitors carrying one tag' largely restates the schema rather than adding syntax, matching behavior for multiple tags, or error conditions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every monitor in the project') and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, slug, status, ping_url), which makes the bulk-listing behavior unmistakable. It never names a sibling, so the contrast with get_monitor for a single monitor is left implicit rather than stated.

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 supplies a real prerequisite ('Requires the read scope or higher') but no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not-to-use exclusions relative to siblings like get_monitor or list_discovered_agents. Usage is only implied by the word 'Lists every monitor in the project'.

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