get_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation via 'GET' and mentions data source ('from the latest successful check'), but omits details on error handling (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, or side effects, which are important for safe invocation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the HTTP method and purpose, and every word adds value by specifying the action and the optional include feature.

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 simplicity (read one monitor by ID), the description is largely complete. It covers the main behavior and the key parameter feature. However, without an output schema, mentioning the response structure or error conditions would enhance completeness, but the current description is adequate for basic use.

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 description adds meaning to the 'include' parameter by specifying that the capture and capture_markdown come from the latest successful check, beyond the schema's description of 'Optional evidence payloads.' However, the 'monitor_id' parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving a gap in understanding its usage (e.g., format or source).

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 states the HTTP method, path, and action ('Read one monitor'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also specifies the optional 'include' parameter for capture or capture_markdown from the latest successful check, distinguishing it from list_monitors (which lists multiple monitors) and other siblings.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_monitors or get_change. It implies it is for reading a single monitor, but lacks explicit context for selection, such as 'Use when you need details of a specific monitor' or 'Not for bulk retrieval.'

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