get_monitor_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the possible return states (Normal, Critical, Warning, MissingData, Disabled), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (though the name implies it). This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second lists the return values. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and the output schema handles return value details. It could mention error scenarios, but that is not critical for this simple read operation.

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 full coverage (100%) for the single parameter monitor_id, including its description. The tool description does not add any information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('monitor'), clearly stating the scope as 'current health and triggering state'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_monitor (which likely returns full configuration) and get_monitor_history (which returns historical data), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for checking the current health/triggering state of a monitor, providing clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., use get_monitor_history for historical trends), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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