list_synthetic_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 states 'List all synthetic monitors' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., active only, includes deleted). This is a significant gap for a list operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'List all synthetic monitors'—front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and siblings that could overlap, it lacks completeness in guiding usage and behavior, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, this is acceptable, aligning with the baseline for 0 parameters.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('synthetic monitors'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetic_monitor' (singular) or 'search_entities', which might also retrieve monitor information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_synthetic_monitor' (for a specific monitor) and 'search_entities' (which might include monitors), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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