Get monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so safety is covered, and the description adds real content on top: what the response contains (settings, health, last run) and that include pulls evidence from the 'latest successful capture' rather than the latest attempt. It does not mention pagination or failure behavior, but for a read tool of this shape it goes beyond the annotations.

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, no filler, with the core fetch described first and the optional expansion second. Everything present earns its place.

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, the description takes on the job of sketching the return shape, which it does via 'settings, health, and last run' plus the optional capture evidence. A brief note on when the capture may be absent would round it out, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates 'include' at a high level. It adds the 'latest successful' qualifier usefully but omits the raw_diff option entirely, so it neither compensates nor fully mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get one monitor') plus the payload the agent receives: settings, health, and last run. The singular scope implicitly separates it from list_monitors, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular fetch framing and by the optional 'include' expansion, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_change, list_monitors, or check_monitor, nor does it state any preconditions. Adequate, not instructive.

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