monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals side effects (starting a 15-minute timer, opening a separate Chrome window, closing the login window), the baseline first-scan behavior, and the process-lifetime restriction. It omits only minor details like failure/error behavior.

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?

Four short sentences pack the purpose, action meanings, prerequisites, and lifecycle caveat with no filler. The core action list is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information.

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 single-parameter control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the parameter domain, prerequisites, baseline behavior, and runtime constraint. It could add expected return values or failure conditions, but those are less critical for this simple action enum.

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%, so the description must explain the 'action' parameter. It does: each enum value is given operational meaning (start every 15 minutes, stop, check now, login opens Chrome, login_done closes window, status is self-explanatory). This fully compensates for the bare 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 names a specific resource ('HH new-vacancy notifications') and a clear control verb, then enumerates the exact actions. It distinguishes itself from a model-analysis tool via the parenthetical '(no model analysis)', but has no sibling tools to differentiate against.

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?

It provides strong operational context: the tool controls notification lifecycle rather than analysis, requires local Telegram setup, and only works while the MCP process is alive. It does not explicitly state 'use when X, not when Y', but the context is clear and there are no sibling alternatives.

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