monitor_get

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It only states 'retrieve real-time operational data' and 'covers any GET', but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, authentication requirements, or pagination. Minimal transparency.

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 redundant information. Purpose is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this generic tool versus specific monitor tools, slightly reducing completeness.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning or context to parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'real-time operational data from any monitor endpoint', and specifies it covers any GET on /api/v2/monitor/{monitor_path}. Distinguishes itself from sibling specific monitor tools by being generic.

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?

Implies usage for any monitor endpoint but does not explicitly state when to use this generic tool versus specific monitor_* siblings (e.g., monitor_firewall_session_list). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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