list_all_monitors

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by clarifying that the tool returns both monitors and their current alert states. It also hints that filtering is exact (not full-text), which is a useful behavioral distinction. No contradictions with annotations.

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: the first states the purpose, the second gives a use-case trigger, and the third names an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 list tool with 6 optional parameters, a high schema coverage, an output schema, and clear read-only/idempotent annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It even points to a sibling tool for a different use case, making it self-sufficient in context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 6 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; it only generically refers to 'exact filters.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 the specific verb 'Browse' with the resource 'all monitors' and explicitly includes 'their current alert states,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_monitor_details or create_alert_monitor. It also names 'search_monitors' as an alternative for a different search mode, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when: want to see what's being monitored or check alert status.' It also states a clear exclusion: 'For a faceted/full-text search instead of exact filters, use search_monitors.' This is a textbook example of when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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