prtg_sensor_details

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. The '[READ]' prefix explicitly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the listed return fields give some idea of what will be observed. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but for a simple read endpoint this disclosure is meaningfully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the '[READ]' label and purpose appear first, followed by concise parameter notes. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and basic read behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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, and it does. It defines sensor_id as 'PRTG sensor object id (objid)' and clarifies target as 'PRTG target name from config; omit for the default', giving each parameter clear purpose and usage beyond the plain schema titles.

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 explicitly states the action ('Detailed status') and the resource ('one PRTG sensor'), and it lists representative return fields (name, status, lastvalue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list sensors or perform different operations, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 'one PRTG sensor' implies it is used when detailed information about a specific sensor is needed, but the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like prtg_sensors or prtg_history, nor does it state any exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is only implied.

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