get_monitor

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds critical behavioral context: assertions, guards, and routes are absent when not configured, and the related write tools replace entire sets. This warning goes well beyond the structured annotations and prevents silent data loss.

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?

Although the description is longer than typical, every sentence earns its place: it states the core function, explains the three significant return fields and their absence semantics, and delivers a crucial pre-write warning. The key action is front-loaded and the warning is clearly structured.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned, when fields may be absent, and why reading before writing is necessary. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already provides full documentation for the single `id` parameter ("Monitor UUID"), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It reinforces that the lookup is by UUID, but this is a minor addition beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get a single LastPing monitor by UUID," and clarifies it returns the full configuration including assertions, guards, and routes. This distinguishes it clearly from list_monitors and other monitor-related tools.

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 when-to-use guidance: read this before update_monitor with assertions or guards, and before set_route. It also explains the consequence of not doing so, making the routing decision unambiguous and actionable.

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