List monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral context: pagination (30 per page), ordering (newest first), and the behavior of returning an empty list instead of an error when nothing matches. It also clarifies the 'pending' and 'paused' statuses. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and structured: 3 sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and pagination, then the field contents, and ends with a practical tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 a good schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers ordering, pagination, field contents, usage context, filtering semantics, and error behavior (empty list). The existence of an output schema covers return values, so no further detail is needed.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds context on how parameters map to use cases (e.g., using status='down' to find broken monitors) and explains the meaning of special enum values like 'pending' and 'paused', which is not fully explicit in 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 clearly states the tool lists monitors on the account with specific ordering and pagination. It explicitly mentions the fields included and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Start here when the request names a monitor by name rather than by id' and 'when asked what is broken' – differentiating from get_monitor and other create/pause/delete 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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Start here when the request names a monitor by name rather than by id, and when asked what is broken'. It also suggests filtering by status 'down' to answer what is broken in one call. This directly addresses usage context versus alternatives like get_monitor.

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