analyze-monitor-state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned data composition (config, state, events, downtimes) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The aggregation behavior is implied but not detailed.

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, front-loading the key benefit and providing context without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it efficient for agent comprehension.

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 multiple data sources), the description adequately lists the components. Without an output schema, it could hint at the response structure, but the current text is sufficient for understanding the tool's role.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds context connecting parameters to the aggregate goal (e.g., hoursBack for events, includeDowntimes) but does not provide additional syntax or format beyond 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 it is an aggregated view combining config, state, events, and downtimes, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-monitor, get-events, and list-downtimes by stating it replaces three round-trips. The verb 'analyze' is supported by the specific content listed.

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 implies usage context by stating it replaces three separate calls, suggesting it should be used when a holistic monitor view is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools beyond the replaced ones.

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