List Monitor Checks

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds concrete details: newest-first ordering, included metrics (status code, response time, timing breakdown), and the project-context requirement. It does not disclose pagination behavior, but that is exposed in the schema. No contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose and then packs the key output fields and filters. Every clause earns its place; no 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?

For a read-only list tool with 6 schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, ordering, returned fields, available filters, and a prerequisite. It does not describe the exact JSON list shape or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the simple list semantics make that acceptable. A small gap is the lack of mention of skip/take pagination, though the schema covers it.

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 baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the onlyErrors and from/to semantics ('see just the failures', 'narrow the window') but adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does help a human/agent quickly map the important filters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the individual checks a monitor ran' with ordering and key fields. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_monitors and get_monitor, which concern monitors themselves rather than their check history.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Requires project context' is a precondition, and explains when to use onlyErrors and from/to filters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_monitors or get_monitor, so alternative selection is left implied.

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