neuron_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 clearly indicates a read-oriented listing operation and the data returned, but it does not explicitly state that no check is triggered or that this is a non-mutating operation. Given the existence of neuron_monitor_check, this missing clarification is a small but real 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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('List') and the resource ('all monitors'), then gives the relevant output fields.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the scope ('all monitors'). It could clarify the scope (e.g., current workspace vs session) or explicitly note that no live checks are performed, but overall it is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies here; nothing is missing because there is nothing to document.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all monitors') and specifies the returned fields (status, last check time, alert count). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like neuron_monitor_check, neuron_monitor_alerts, and neuron_monitor_create.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool to get an overview of all monitors and their statuses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like neuron_monitor_check or neuron_monitor_alerts, but the 'list' framing is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it correctly without much inference.

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