List monitors

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotation cannot convey: precedence when monitors claim the same event (lower `order` wins). It does not cover pagination or ordering guarantees beyond that, but the output schema exists to describe returns.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the tie-break rule following immediately. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain returns. The evaluation-order/tie-break rule is the key semantic an agent needs for this list tool; only filtering or pagination behavior is left unstated.

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?

There is one optional parameter (X-Orchestra-Account-Id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents account selection semantics. The description adds nothing about it, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 (list) and resource (monitors), plus the meaningful detail that results come in evaluation order. It reads clearly against siblings like get_monitor and reorder_monitors, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the related siblings (get_monitor, reorder_monitors, update_monitor) that an agent might confuse with this call. Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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