monitor_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Start a monitor' without explaining what happens (e.g., state changes, performance impact, prerequisites). The response format or stopping mechanism is not mentioned.

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 a single sentence and contains no fluff, but it sacrifices completeness. It is appropriately brief given the tool's simplicity, but lacks necessary detail.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify how to stop the monitor, what events are returned, or how the parameters interact. For a tool with two optional parameters, more context 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It mentions resource types in examples but does not explain the 'events' parameter or clarify that both arrays are optional. The meaning of each parameter is not adequately conveyed.

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 starts a monitor for RDP resource types and provides examples (console-message, error-message, etc.). It distinguishes the action (start) from its counterpart (stop_monitor), but does not explicitly differentiate from other monitoring tools like list_network_requests.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to start a monitor vs. using list_network_requests). There are no usage context or explicit exclusions.

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