prufa_trigger_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: rate limit (1 per 60s), dedup on concurrent runs, idempotency, and Pro tier requirement. It does not detail the return format or error conditions, but covers the most important behavioral traits.

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 three sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds distinct value: action, constraints, idempotency + tier. Front-loads the core purpose and then details caveats efficiently.

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 no output schema and only 2 params, the description covers rate limits, dedup, and idempotency. It does not explain the response shape (though mentions deduped:true) or monitor_id format. For a simple trigger tool, it is nearly complete but could detail error handling or response on success.

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 has 50% description coverage (only idempotency_key described). The description adds context for idempotency_key ('pass one to make retries safe') but does not describe monitor_id. The overall behavior (trigger a run) clarifies the role of monitor_id indirectly, but parameter-specific additions are minimal.

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 ('Trigger') and resource ('a monitor run') with immediate context ('right now (out of band)'). It distinguishes from siblings like prufa_start_monitor or prufa_run_flow by specifying it's for monitors and happens immediately, with dedup behavior.

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 constraints (rate cap, dedup, idempotent) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like prufa_get_run, prufa_list_runs, or prufa_pause_monitor. It implies on-demand triggering but lacks explicit comparisons or scenarios.

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