analyze-monitor-state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states what data is returned (config, state, events, downtimes) and implies a read-only aggregation. However, it could explicitly mention that it does not modify monitor state, though the description effectively communicates behavior.

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 two sentences, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (aggregating three sources) and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies what is returned (config, state, events, downtimes) and implies the time window via the hoursBack parameter. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully describes each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it provides context for the overall purpose but not additional semantic details for 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 clearly states the tool aggregates monitor config, current state, recent triggered events, and active downtimes in one call. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it replaces three separate round-trips (get-monitor, get-events, list-downtimes).

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('aggregated monitor view') and contrasts it with alternatives ('Replaces 3 round-trips of get-monitor + get-events + list-downtimes'), providing clear guidance on usage versus separate calls.

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