web_monitor

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 mentions checking up, measuring response time, and getting HTTP details, but does not specify what constitutes 'HTTP details' (e.g., status code, headers, response time units) or any side effects. It is clear but superficial, lacking depth.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Check if a website is up') followed by secondary details. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., response time in milliseconds, HTTP status code) or clarify the meaning of 'HTTP details', which are crucial for an agent to interpret the result correctly.

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 already describes the 'url' parameter as 'URL to monitor' with 100% coverage. The description adds 'website' context but no additional semantic meaning about format or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 states specific verbs ('check', 'measure', 'get') and a clear resource ('website', 'HTTP details'), which unambiguously defines the tool's purpose. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like web_extract (content extraction) and web_search (searching).

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 when to use this tool (for uptime monitoring, response time, HTTP details) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks statements like 'use web_extract for content' or 'use web_search for search queries', leaving the selection to inference.

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