agent_monitor

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds that auth checks run 'without logging in or running a model' via 'permitted commands', clarifying scope. However, it buries the fact that writePage defaults to true, so a state-mutating file write happens by default – the description frames writing as a trailing option rather than the default behavior.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which earns its place. The second sentence is a long run-on chaining two alternatives with commas, making it denser than needed for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

With no output schema, 4 parameters at 25% coverage, and a nested object, the description should carry more of the load. It gives a usable overview of capabilities but omits refreshSeconds behavior, the writePage default, and any hint about the returned summary format.

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 low (25% – only the nested agent object is documented). The description compensates partially by implicitly mapping 'check existing CLI sign-in status' to checkAuthentication and 'write a self-contained HTML page' to writePage, but refreshSeconds is never mentioned and no defaults or boolean semantics are explained.

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?

States specific verbs and resources – summarising runtimes, presence health and installed launchers, with optional sign-in checks and HTML page output. An agent can grasp the monitor's scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling agent_presence.

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 enumerates optional capabilities but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over agent_presence, and no prerequisites. 'Optionally' signals flexibility but not context for the agent to choose this tool.

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