get_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and clarifies the return scope, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or performance characteristics. The output schema helps with return format, but the description adds limited additional behavioral context.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not address usage exclusions or error scenarios, but the simple nature of the tool and the presence of structured metadata make it adequately complete.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter monitor_id with a basic description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level context, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'monitor' and explicitly states it returns 'full configuration and current status', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_monitor_status, get_monitor_history, 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (retrieving configuration and status) and implicitly differentiates it from get_monitor_status, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. No exclusions are mentioned.

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