List Monitors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is disclosed. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or what data each monitor contains. This is minimal but adequate for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 concise sentence, 'List all existing monitors', which is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word adds value beyond the title.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does. It could mention that no filtering is possible or how results are presented, but for a trivial list tool, this is not a critical gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). There is no parameter information needed, so the description does not need to compensate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 'List all existing monitors' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (monitors), and the qualifier 'all existing' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor (which targets a single monitor). It fully clarifies the tool's scope.

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 implies usage (when you want all monitors) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_monitor or mention any exclusions. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not informative beyond the obvious.

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