spidra_check_monitor

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the check runs in the background, costs the same as a scheduled check, triggers alerts like a scheduled check, and is limited to once per minute per monitor. It also tells the agent how to retrieve the eventual result via a sibling tool. These are meaningful behavioral details not available in the annotations or schema.

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 four short sentences with no waste, front-loading the action before operational details. Every sentence contributes: what it does, how it behaves, the rate limit, and where to read results.

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 one-parameter background-trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: asynchronous behavior, cost, alerting, rate limit, and result retrieval. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and know what to do next.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter monitorId is already documented as 'The monitor's id'. The description implies that the monitor is the target and reinforces the per-monitor rate limit, but it adds no further syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Run a monitor's check now, outside its schedule.' It makes clear this is an on-demand check rather than a scheduled run, and it is distinguishable from sibling monitor-management tools. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to run a check outside the normal schedule, at most once per minute per monitor, and read results later with spidra_monitor_changes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a direct triggering alternative, but the operational guidance is strong.

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