list_monitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication, or the exact return format. It only restates the core action and filters, which are already evident from the schema, leaving agents without critical execution context.

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 two sentences and direct, with no filler. The second sentence adds a use-case insight, though it is somewhat generic. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though not as information-dense as high-scoring examples.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and 2 well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not specify what fields the returned monitors include, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent to handle correctly.

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?

Both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'filtering by status and tags' without adding syntax, formatting, or edge-case behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action ('List all Datadog monitors') and scope ('all monitors in your account'), with optional filters by status and tags. It implicitly distinguishes from 'search_monitors' by focusing on a broad listing, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a use case ('Useful for getting an overview of all monitors in your account'), implying it is a broad listing tool. However, it does not explain when to use this over 'search_monitors' or other alternatives, offering only implied guidance.

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