monitor_run_once

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes a check and returns results (new/timeout counts), but it gives no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the check mutates any state. For an action that triggers an immediate execution, this lack of detail is a notable gap.

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 that leads with the action and purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy. While it lacks structured formatting, it is efficient and front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative, but brevity is appropriate for a simple action.

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?

With an output schema present (though not shown), the return value is somewhat covered. The description explains the outcome (returns results) and the trigger. However, it does not mention possible error conditions (e.g., non-existent monitor), prerequisites, or side effects. Given the single-parameter simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough for a tool that executes an action.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by indicating that the parameter 'name' refers to the specific monitor to be checked ('指定监控'), which maps the parameter to the resource. However, it does not explicitly state that 'name' is the monitor identifier, nor does it give any format or validation hints. The minimal parameter makes this a moderate pass.

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 verb ('execute'), the resource ('monitor check'), and the immediate nature ('without waiting for the scheduled cycle'). It also indicates the output ('return results of this run'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitor_add, monitor_list, monitor_remove, and monitor_enable, which manage monitors rather than execute a check.

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 phrase '不等定时周期' (does not await the scheduled cycle) implies the tool is for ad-hoc immediate checks, contrasting with the routine behavior of the monitor. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. There is no explicit 'use when' or 'do not use when' guidance.

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