Get Uptime Kuma Monitor Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior by noting that uptime and avgPing may be 'computed from heartbeats if needed', which hints at a fallback computation path beyond simple stored-value retrieval.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a purpose sentence, an Args list, and a Returns line. It contains no fluff, though the Args list partially duplicates the schema's already-available parameter documentation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately states the return values (uptime as 0-1, avgPing in ms, and the heartbeat computation note). For a low-complexity read-only tool, this is sufficient context; missing edge-case or error behavior is not critical here.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and documents monitor_id, period_hours, and response_format with types, defaults, and bounds. The description only restates the parameter names and the period_hours default, adding no extra semantic detail 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?

The description states a specific operation: get uptime ratio and avg ping for a monitor over a period. This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like listing monitors or fetching raw heartbeats, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative.

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 implies the tool is for aggregate uptime/ping queries over a time window, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools such as uptime_kuma_get_heartbeats or uptime_kuma_get_metrics are not referenced, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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