spidra_list_monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the summary shape (schedule, last check, next check) and that a single-monitor fetch is more detailed than the list. It does not mention pagination or list size limits, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the listing behavior, then the single-item variant, then the sibling redirect. No filler and no repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the fields returned for the list case and implying a fuller object for the single case. It is sufficient to call the tool correctly, though return shape for the 'in full' case is left implicit.

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 single parameter is documented as 'Get this one monitor instead of listing'; the description's 'Pass monitorId to get one in full' largely restates that, adding only the nuance of fuller detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 ('List the user's monitors') plus the fields returned (schedule, last check, next check), which cleanly separates it from the create/update/delete/check monitor siblings. The note that 'what changed is in spidra_monitor_changes' further disambiguates it from the change-feed sibling.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use spidra_monitor_changes for deltas, and pass monitorId to fetch a single monitor in full rather than listing. It lacks any exclusion notes for the other monitor siblings (create/update/delete), but the primary alternative is named with its selecting condition.

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