monitor_ipc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that invoke handlers registered before monitoring are not captured, and send messages are always captured, which are important behavioral nuances. It does not mention side effects or permissions but covers key limitations.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds detail, third provides a critical caveat. Highly efficient.

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?

The description does not explain return values or behavior on start/stop (e.g., success indication). It mentions reading with get_ipc_log, but without an output schema, more context is needed for full 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% and the description does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides (action enum, sessionId). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra parameter context.

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 or stops IPC monitoring in the main process, a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like monitor_events or get_ipc_log by focusing on IPC message capture.

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 for capturing IPC messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like monitor_events. It provides a caveat about invoke handlers but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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