create_monitor

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

Marks it as a WRITE operation, but with no annotations, fails to disclose behaviors like idempotency, permissions required, or conflict handling. Minimal behavioral 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 creation tool with a complex nested parameter and no output schema, the description omits return value, constraints, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.

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 baseline 3. Description adds the spec name reference but does not elaborate on parameter interactions 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?

Clearly states 'Create a new synthetic monitor definition' (verb+resource) and references the spec, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_monitor' or 'delete_monitor'.

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?

Implies usage by referencing the spec types, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to choose BROWSER vs MULTI_PROTOCOL, or when to use update_monitor instead).

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