List Uptime Kuma Monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are paginated and include has_more/next_offset, which is not visible in the input schema or annotations. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a concise parameter list, a short return note, and clear usage guidance. Each section earns its place and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by noting the paginated return shape with has_more/next_offset and the response_format option. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though it does not enumerate monitor fields in the response; this is a minor gap for a list operation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters accurately. The description briefly restates limit, offset, search, and response_format, which helps readability but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists monitors from Uptime Kuma with pagination and optional search, and the description explicitly distinguishes it from uptime_kuma_get_monitor by noting that single-monitor details should use the sibling tool. The specific verb-resource pair leaves no ambiguity.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' examples ('show my monitors', 'list http monitors') and a direct 'Don't use when' clause naming uptime_kuma_get_monitor provide unambiguous selection criteria. This is exactly the level of guidance needed for an agent to choose between siblings.

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