analyze-monitor-state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool aggregates multiple data types into one response, but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. Provides useful context beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no extraneous content. The first sentence states the primary functionality, and the second provides a clear use-case comparison. Very concise and well-structured.

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 read-only nature and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note on the structure or format of the aggregated response would improve completeness.

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 parameters are well-defined in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it provides an 'aggregated monitor view' including config, current state, triggered events, and active downtimes, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get-monitor, get-events, and 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 says it 'replaces 3 round-trips of get-monitor + get-events + list-downtimes', effectively telling the agent when to use this tool over making separate calls.

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