prtg_sensors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the [READ] tag reinforces it, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the config-based target selection, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the read tag and the core purpose, then a compact Args block. Every element earns its place, though the bracketed [READ] tag is somewhat redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 read-only list tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the returned fields, and both parameters. With no output schema it helpfully lists the return columns; only pagination/volume behavior is left unstated.

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 carries the burden, and it does so well: status is documented as an optional PRTG status code with a concrete example ('5' for down), and target as a config name with 'omit for the default' semantics. Both parameters get meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (PRTG sensors) and even enumerates the returned fields (objid, sensor, device, status, message, lastValue). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like prtg_devices and prtg_groups by the resource noun, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with prtg_sensor_details.

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 a listing/browsing use case and explains the target parameter's default behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives such as prtg_sensor_details for drilling into a single sensor. Usage must be inferred.

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