getPerformanceMonitors

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what happens if no monitors exist, or any authentication or rate limit implications. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 very short but critically lacks the tool's purpose and usage context. It omits important parameters (host, apiKey) and does not convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 of the domain (network device monitoring with many related tools), the description does not explain what performance monitors are returned, how to interpret results, or how this tool differs from getPerformanceMonitorDetails. No output schema is provided to compensate.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description only lists three parameters (deviceName, category, type) with brief labels that add no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra value provided.

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 only provides the tool name and a broad category line ('Manage and query network devices'), without stating what the tool retrieves or returns. It essentially restates the name without specifying that it retrieves performance monitors for a device.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPerformanceMonitorDetails or listDevices. There is no context on prerequisites or restrictions.

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