list_monitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation (GET) but fails to disclose error conditions, pagination, rate limits, or what happens with invalid workspace_id. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a list endpoint.

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—one sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the endpoint and key information, earning its place with zero wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) but the description only mentions three return fields. Missing details like ordering, pagination, or error handling. Given complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, but it does list return fields which partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 it lists monitors in a workspace, mentions the HTTP method GET, and specifies included fields (health, cadence, last_run). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor (single) and create_monitor.

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 implies usage for listing monitors in a workspace but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Context from sibling tool names suggests this is for bulk retrieval, but no guidance is given.

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