getAssociatedServiceMonitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Only the tool name and parameter are repeated.

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 extremely short but wastes space by repeating the tool name and providing minimal parameter info. It fails to front-load crucial context like required parameters or usage, making it inefficient despite brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It does neither, leaving the agent entirely in the dark about what the tool produces or how it behaves. This is a significant gap given the tool's complexity (3 required params).

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. However, the description only highlights 'name' and omits the required 'host' and 'apiKey', which are critical for usage. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and misleads by ignoring essential parameters.

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 indicates the tool retrieves associated service monitors for a device, consistent with its name. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like getAssociatedProcessMonitors or getDeviceAssociatedMonitors, leaving ambiguity about the specific resource type.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or context, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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