List Monitors

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so this is already known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavior details: the 'grouped' mode changes paging behavior ('paging does not apply then') and 'includeStats' adds uptime/latency/sparkline data. It does not explain default paging limits or any rate limits, but the core behavioral nuances are disclosed.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the two optional flags. Every sentence carries information about behavior or usage. It could be slightly more compact by trimming 'the way the sidebar shows them' but overall it's efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main filtering/grouping/stat options and project context requirement. However, it does not mention pagination defaults (skip/take) or that 'grouped' overrides paging, which an agent might need to know for large projects. The schema covers the parameter defaults, so the gap is moderate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds meaning for 'grouped' (environment → spec tree, paging does not apply) and 'includeStats' (what stats are included), which exceeds what the schema says. Overall, the description adds some value beyond the schema but does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('monitors of a project') and adds scope ('current status') and the sourced 'grouped' and 'includeStats' behaviors. It is distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., list_monitor_checks, get_monitoring_settings), although it does not explicitly name another sibling it is not.

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 says 'Requires project context' and explains when to use 'grouped' and 'includeStats', giving clear context for flag usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like list_monitor_checks or get_monitoring_settings, so the when-vs-alternatives guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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