Create port monitor

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

Adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: the monitor only reports 'up' when the service actually answers, and UDP requires a real reply. This clarifies success semantics that the schema doesn't convey. Annotations are minimal (e.g., readOnlyHint=false implicitly write), so the description adds meaningful context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then concrete examples. No wasted words, though the third sentence could be seen as slightly redundant with the schema's protocol description, but it reinforces a common pitfall.

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 2-required-param tool with a well-documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral context and protocol nuances. It doesn't mention failure modes or pagination, but those are not critical for a creation endpoint.

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 already documents all parameters with useful descriptions (url format, name length, protocol default). The description adds extra real-world guidance on choosing UDP for game servers and reiterates the port requirement, complementing but not duplicating 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('watch') with a clear resource ('one TCP/UDP port') and explicitly differentiates from HTTP monitors by stating it's for game servers, databases, mail, etc. The examples (Minecraft, Rust, CS2) make it unmistakable what this tool does.

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 context for when to use this monitor type ('rather than HTTP') and why UDP is needed for game servers. It doesn't name sibling tools, but the clear distinction and protocol guidance make the intended scope obvious.

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