get_monitor_details_by_id

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 fails to disclose the return format, error behavior, or whether any special permissions are needed. While 'get' implies a read operation, the description does not add behavioral depth beyond that.

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 redundant: 'monitor_id is the monitor UUID' and 'monitor_id is the unique identifier' convey the same information twice. A more streamlined version would be more concise while retaining all key details.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks details about return structure or failure cases, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema only specifies monitor_id as a string, but the description enriches it with the meaning (UUID), an example value, and guidance on how to find it. This fully compensates for the zero schema coverage for this single parameter.

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 a clear verb+resource ('Get monitor details by id'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the name itself is distinctive enough among the listed siblings.

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?

It provides clear context: the monitor_id is a UUID and can be found by searching for a monitor. This implies when to use it (when you have the id) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it earns a 4.

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