get_monitor_details

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, so the description adds value by specifying that the tool returns 'complete configuration and current status' and highlights thresholds and notification settings. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the response content.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose and usage without redundancy.

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 parameter description already provides semantic context by stating the source of the monitor_id ('from list_all_monitors or search_monitors'). The tool description itself does not need to add more, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('complete monitor configuration and current status'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_all_monitors or search_monitors by focusing on detailed configuration and current state.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when:' guidance with concrete use cases (see monitor details, thresholds, notification settings). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the context is clear enough.

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