check_monitor

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. 'Queue an on-demand check' is vague about whether it returns immediately, is idempotent, or has side effects. The HTTP endpoint is redundant for an AI agent.

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, one arguably unnecessary (the endpoint). However, it is brief and front-loads the core action. Could be more concise by removing the endpoint.

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 simple trigger tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral details that would help an agent understand the asynchronicity and effect.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain monitor_id beyond the schema, missing context like how to obtain valid IDs or format constraints.

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 queues an on-demand check for a monitor, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_monitor (read) or create_monitor (create). The verb 'Queue' and 'on-demand' specify the action and scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_changes or refresh_workspace. The description implies manual triggering but does not clarify prerequisites or when not to use.

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