Get Monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns recent checks, lists the include flags' effects, and notes the project context requirement. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra detail about what gets fetched, earning a strong score.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the include flags explained succinctly. Every clause adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple get tool with one required parameter and five optional booleans, the description is nearly complete. It states the return scope (monitor with recent checks) and the effect of each include flag, and notes the project context prerequisite. The absence of return-format details is acceptable given no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that the include flags mirror the monitor detail page, which helps an agent understand their combined effect. However, this is contextual rather than essential, keeping it at the baseline of 3.

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 tool fetches a single monitor with its recent checks, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list_monitors (which lists all monitors) and list_monitor_checks (which likely focuses on checks alone) by framing the include flags as what the monitor detail page shows. 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 implies usage for retrieving one monitor's details, and mentions the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_monitors for bulk retrieval, but the context signals are clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool. The absence of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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