get_monitor_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the 'before toggling' context, which is useful but not a behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two short sentences carry the purpose and the usage guidance without fluff. The key action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence supplies the conditional use case.

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 zero-parameter read-only query, the description is nearly complete and the on/off outcome is stated despite no output schema. The main gap is that it does not address multi-monitor ambiguity, but the sibling get_system_monitors suggests this is a separate concern.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description has no parameter meanings to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema is empty and no disambiguation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resource ('monitor state'), and clarifies the outcome as on/off. It also contrasts with toggling, which separates it from monitor_on/monitor_off.

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?

It explicitly instructs using this tool before toggling state when unsure, giving a clear condition for use. It stops short of naming the alternative toggle tools or saying when not to use it beyond the 'unsure' condition.

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