get_monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds important context: field presence semantics ('absent when the monitor has none') and a warning that related write operations replace entire sets, risking silent data loss. It also explains what assertions, guards, and routes mean. No contradiction 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: auth requirement, basic purpose, return-field semantics, and critical read-before-write warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses the final sentence to highlight a non-obvious behavioral consequence.

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 compensates by explaining the three key return fields and their absence behavior. It also covers auth, the single-parameter call pattern, and the relationship to mutating siblings. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the important parts of the response.

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 for the single parameter id is 100% and the schema already describes it as 'Monitor UUID.' The description reinforces 'by UUID' but adds no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 action and resource: 'Get a single LastPing monitor by UUID.' It also distinguishes this from list-style siblings by emphasizing 'single' and by UUID. The mention of returned configuration fields further clarifies exactly what the tool is for.

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 guidance on when to call this tool: 'Read this before calling update_monitor with assertions or guards, and before calling set_route.' It also discloses the required auth scope up front. This is strong, actionable routing advice.

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