Get Monitor

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavior beyond that: nothing about what happens with an unknown ID, error responses, or what fields the configuration contains. With annotations covering the basics, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose followed by a usage condition and one compact example. The 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN USERS: Get details of a specific monitor' bullet slightly restates the first sentence, a minor redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials for correct invocation. It could briefly say what the returned configuration includes or how to handle an unknown ID, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single monitorId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The example value ('2cSZzK3XfmB') usefully illustrates the ID format, but no additional semantics (scope, permissions, whether the ID is the display ID) are added beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve a specific monitor configuration by ID from Mackerel'), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling list_monitors. It stops short of explicitly naming the list vs. get distinction, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN USERS' block gives clear context ('Get details of a specific monitor') and a concrete example call. It lacks an explicit exclusion or an alternative reference (e.g., use list_monitors to enumerate), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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