get_monitor_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists connected monitors, which is a read-only operation by implication ('list'). However, it does not describe the output format, whether monitor IDs are returned, or any other behavioral details. This is a minimal but not misleading description.

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, concise sentence with the key verb first and a helpful parenthetical. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and the intended use. It could be slightly more explicit about what the output contains (e.g., monitor IDs usable in projector tools), but the parenthetical strongly implies this. No significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'connected monitors', making the tool's function unambiguous. The parenthetical '(for opening a projector on one)' adds a clear use case that distinguishes it from other list tools like get_scene_list or get_transition_kind_list.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when you need to open a projector on a specific monitor), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The intended use is implied by the parenthetical, which is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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