getPerformanceMonitorDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a 'get' tool, read-only behavior is implied but not stated.

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 short but not concisely useful. It begins with the tool name repeated, then a category line, and then a list of parameters that are already in the schema. The structure is not front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence.

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 complexity (6 required params, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what a performance monitor detail consists of, or any prerequisites. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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%, but the description omits two required parameters (host and apiKey) and only lists 4 of the 6. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage of the omitted 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 states the category and lists key parameters, which implies it retrieves performance monitor details, but it does not explicitly state the action. The name itself is descriptive, but the description adds little beyond the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools like getPerformanceMonitors and getDeviceAssociatedMonitors, the description should clarify when to use this specific tool, but it does not.

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