list_monitors

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only lists the returned fields; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or has any rate limits. For a simple list operation, the lack of explicit safety info is a gap, though the phrasing 'List' implies a read action without stating it.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and output fields. It is minimal with no filler, and every word adds value. Efficiently structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 an output schema exists (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain returns. The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers the purpose and output fields. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description contains no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rule, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately handles the absence of parameters.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'List monitors with resolution, position, active workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('monitors') and specifies the returned attributes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces or list_windows, which target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context implies it is for querying monitor information, but it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need monitor details' or compare with other tools. Lacks any usage direction.

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