prufa_get_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns config and state fields, and the '[Pro]' tag suggests a plan requirement. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., missing monitor), permission needs, or side effects.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise, but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., separating config and state). No superfluous 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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides fundamental details. However, it lacks explanation of output format, error cases, or usage context, leaving the agent to guess about return structure.

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 input schema has one parameter (monitor_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no context about what monitor_id is, where to get it, or its format. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Get', the resource 'one monitor', and specifies what is returned: 'config + latest state (status, cadence, last run, deploy-hook metadata)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prufa_list_monitors (listing all) and mutation tools.

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 retrieving a single monitor's details but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., list_monitors) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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