list_monitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention pagination behavior (though the schema does), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no monitors match filters. It only provides basic functional context about monitors.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds helpful context about monitors. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for tool selection.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functional context but lacks important behavioral details like pagination handling, error conditions, or output format guidance. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself is incomplete for agent usage.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('all monitors from Datadog'), and provides context about what monitors are used for. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_metrics' or 'list_slos' beyond mentioning monitors are for alerting.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or any specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others. The only usage context is the generic explanation of what monitors are used for.

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