create_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a monitor and that simple versus complex paths exist, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, validation behavior, or failure modes. The mutation intent is clear, but additional behavioral context (e.g., prerequisite folder existence, permissions required) would be valuable.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful guidance. There is no redundant information or filler.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters and an output schema, and the schema descriptions cover all parameters. The description provides a high-level roadmap for simple versus complex usage, which is essential for a tool with this many parameters. It could be more explicit about prerequisites like folder ownership, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the schema and output schema.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that threshold/trigger_type are for simple monitors while triggers_json/notifications_json are for complex monitors, which is not evident from individual schema descriptions. This guidance helps the agent decide which parameter groups to use.

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 opens with "Create a new Sumo Logic monitor," a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes simple versus complex monitor creation, which separates it from sibling tools like update_monitor, delete_monitor, and enable_monitor.

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 clear guidance on when to use the simple threshold parameters versus the complex JSON parameters, which is essential for correct invocation. It lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternative tools for creating monitors, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for creating monitors.

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