validate_monitor

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'never creates, modifies, or persists' and provides a specific permission caveat about log alert validation requiring log data read access. This helps the agent anticipate potential permission errors.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Use this when' directive and a brief caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's straightforward validation function and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, safety guarantees, and a potential permission edge case. There is no missing information that would impede an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does mention the 'log alert' monitor type in the permission note, which is a parameter-specific behavioral nuance. However, it does not explain query syntax or monitor_type values beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Validate a monitor query's syntax without creating anything.' It uses a specific verb (validate), names the resource (monitor query), and explicitly distinguishes itself from create_alert_monitor by stating it never creates, modifies, or persists a monitor.

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 gives an explicit usage scenario: 'Use this when: want to check a monitor definition is well-formed before calling create_alert_monitor, especially for hand-built queries.' This clearly tells the agent when to use it and directly names the alternative (create_alert_monitor) for the actual creation step.

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