get_monitor_code_by_description

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

The description discloses the output format ('The result is a YAML string') and the required inputs, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., whether it actually creates a monitor or only generates code). Without annotations, this leaves some ambiguity about the tool's safety profile and behavioral implications.

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 repetitive, redefining 'description' multiple times ('The input is a description...', 'The description should be...', 'The description is a string...'). While the content is useful, the redundancy adds unnecessary length and could be condensed without losing information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, required inputs, a usage example, and the output format (YAML string). It adequately addresses the key aspects for a simple two-parameter tool, though it does not discuss error cases or edge cases. This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and lack of additional schema/annotation context.

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?

Despite the schema having no descriptions, the tool description adds significant meaning to both parameters: it explains dataset_ids as a list to apply the monitor to and instructs to use search_asset for discovery, and it defines description with an example ('Create a monitor that checks if the number of rows in the table is greater than 1000'). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Returns a monitor configuration based on the input query' and elaborates that it converts a natural language description and dataset IDs into a YAML configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monitor_details_by_id (which retrieves existing monitor details) and search_asset (which finds datasets).

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 explicit guidance on inputs: it requires at least one dataset ID and directs users to 'find the id of the dataset using search_asset'. This gives clear context for when to use the tool and how to gather prerequisites, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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