spidra_monitor_changes

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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results grouped per source, old and new values, page text changes, baseline semantics on a source's first check, and a 30-day retention limit.

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 dense sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and the checkId mode second. Nearly every clause carries information, though the baseline sentence could be folded in more tightly.

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 does the work of describing return shape (per-source new/changed/removed items, summaries, baseline) and retention. Only pagination semantics are left unexplained, a minor omission for a 4-parameter read tool.

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 75% and already documents monitorId, checkId and limit; the description still adds value by explaining what checkId actually returns (new/changed/removed items with old and new values). It does not cover the 'page' parameter or clarify its interaction with 'limit', leaving a small gap.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource (a monitor's checks) and states ordering plus content shape (newest first, one-line summaries). It is clearly distinguishable from spidra_list_monitors or spidra_check_monitor, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 does provide a conditional usage pattern — pass "checkId" to get one check in full instead of the list — but it gives no guidance on when to use this versus spidra_check_monitor (trigger a check) or spidra_list_monitors (enumerate monitors). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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