list_monitored

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions output fields (names, IDs, package counts, dates) but does not state that the operation is read-only, harmless, or requires any authentication. For a list operation, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief list of output fields. Every word adds value without fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool lists and what fields are returned. It could mention that only currently monitored projects are included, but that is implied by 'registered for vulnerability monitoring'.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (project names, IDs, package counts, registration dates), though this pertains to output rather than parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all projects registered for vulnerability monitoring.' It specifies the verb (List) and resource (projects registered for vulnerability monitoring), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like monitor_project (which adds monitoring) and unmonitor_project (which removes monitoring).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_alerts or scan_project. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward and the sibling names imply that this is the listing tool. Some guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing monitoring set up) is absent.

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