monitor_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses that this is a GET-based read endpoint, that secret fields are redacted, and that large output is truncated. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, but the key output-handling traits are explained.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and examples, then organizes parameters and returns clearly. Some parameter text repeats the schema, but the path-prefix and return-handling details make the length mostly justified.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior, which it does by stating that raw JSON is returned with secret fields redacted and large output truncated. For a generic monitor-passthrough endpoint, this is largely complete, though error and permission context are absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: path must exclude the /api/v2/monitor/ prefix and params are optional query parameters passed through as JSON. It also lists all four parameters, including optional vdom.

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 verb and resource: it reads any live-status endpoint via GET /api/v2/monitor/{path}. The examples make the intended scope concrete, but the tool is not explicitly differentiated from sibling-specific getters such as get_license_status, get_interface_status, or get_device_status.

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?

Usage is implied as a generic passthrough for monitor endpoints, with optional query parameters passed through. However, the description does not say when an agent should choose this broad tool versus the many specific sibling getters that cover the same domains.

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