Get Uptime Kuma Monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned fields ('type, url, interval, status, tags') and framing the tool as a supporting read before mutations. It does not add further details like error behavior, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 tight, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured into clear sections: the one-line summary, args, returns, and a usage hint. Every sentence is useful and no filler exists.

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 is a simple read-only fetch with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs, output fields, and the decision context. It stops short of addressing not-found or error behavior, which would make it fully complete, but the low complexity and rich annotations make this acceptable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by noting monitor_id is 'ID from list_monitors,' which tells the agent where to source valid IDs. The response_format parameter is simply restated, matching the schema, so not much extra there.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get single monitor details by ID.' It distinguishes the tool from sibling list_monitors by specifying 'single' and requiring an ID, so an agent can immediately tell this tool provides item-level detail rather than a collection listing.

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 explicitly states a use case: 'Use when: need edit/delete/pause context.' This gives clear decision guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, such as list_monitors for overviews or get_heartbeats for time-series data.

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