list_monitors

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the project scope, the exact return fields, and the tag-filtering behavior. No pagination or ordering details are given, but this is minor for a simple list tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the return payload is stated immediately, and the parameter guidance is included without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the scope, lists the returned fields, and explains filtering. The annotations cover safety, and the missing details like pagination are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the schema already documents the optional tag parameter with an example and expected effect. The description repeats this in slightly different words ('filter by a single tag') but adds no meaningful meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('monitors'), and the scope ('in the authenticated LastPing project'). It also enumerates the returned fields (id, name, slug, status, ping_url), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling monitor tools like get_monitor or update_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 clearly implies the tool is the list/filter operation and explains how to use the tag parameter, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as get_monitor for a single monitor or mentions when not to use this tool. Usage context is present but relies on inference from sibling names.

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