Create monitor and wait

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the call blocks, can time out (leaving the monitor running), and returns an id for later use. However, it doesn't explain what 'settles' means (e.g., success/failure states), error handling, or whether the call can be interrupted. This is a partial disclosure that leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded with the key point ('Convenience'). Every clause provides useful information: it combines operations, blocks, handles timeout, and suggests a follow-up action. No filler or redundancy.

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 and no annotations, this description does a good job for a convenience wrapper. It explains the blocking behavior, timeout handling, and the ability to continue with monitor_wait on the returned id. It doesn't describe return format or state meanings, which would be necessary for full completeness, but for a combined create+wait operation it is sufficiently clear.

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 60%, and the description adds meaning to wait_timeout_seconds by explaining its role in the blocking timeout. It does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema mostly explains parameters, but the description could have compensated for uncovered ones.

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 verb and resource: it creates a monitor and waits for it to settle, combining monitor_create and monitor_wait. It explicitly mentions 'one blocking call', which distinguishes it from the separate sibling tools. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 use this tool when you want create-and-wait in a single step. It also provides guidance on the timeout scenario, suggesting you can use monitor_wait later on the returned id. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear from the sibling list.

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