list_monitors

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields but does not disclose pagination behavior (though limit/offset are in the schema) or clarify that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The nature of 'list' implies safety, so the lack of explicit safety disclosure is not a contradiction, but it is a missing detail.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It omits irrelevant details and is easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of guidance on when to use this tool versus search_monitors is a notable gap. The description is minimally sufficient for a simple list operation but lacks broader context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters (limit and offset) are already well described by the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about how these parameters affect results, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (list) and resource (monitors) and specifies the returned fields (names, IDs, types, statuses). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling search_monitors tool, though the word 'all' implies a broad listing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_monitors or get_monitor. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.

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