get_monitor_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload ('failure reasons and remediation'), which is useful context, but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, or pagination/limits.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with a conventional Args/Returns layout. The Args block is slightly redundant for a one-parameter tool, but there is no filler prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so spelling out the return payload is arguably unnecessary; the real gap is that an agent gets no guidance on where the monitor_id comes from or what a not-found result means for a detail-fetch tool.

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 0% for the single monitor_id parameter, and the description only restates it tautologically ('monitor_id: The monitor ID'). It adds no format, sourcing, or relationship guidance (e.g., that the ID comes from list_monitors).

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific monitor/test') and the singular scope distinguishes it implicitly from list_monitors/list_failing_monitors. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you need a monitor_id and want detail. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_monitors, get_monitors_for_control, or list_failing_monitors, and no prerequisites are given.

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