prtg_sensors

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

The description begins with '[READ]' and says 'List', clearly signaling a non-mutating operation, and it states the output fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior when no status is provided. These gaps keep it at an adequate but not strong level.

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 well-organized: a one-line summary with [READ] and output fields, followed by a concise arg list. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 with two optional parameters, the description covers the returned fields, filtering, and target behavior. It does not provide a full status-code reference or pagination details, but the low complexity and optional parameters make this a minor gap.

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 schema provides only names and nullability, while the description explains that status is an optional filter with an example ('5' for down) and that target comes from config with a default fallback. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, though the full set of valid status codes is not documented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List PRTG sensors' and enumerates the returned fields (objid, sensor, device, status, message, lastValue). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like prtg_sensor_details or prtg_devices, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful parameter instructions (filtering by status, target default) but never explicitly says when to choose this tool over prtg_sensor_details or other sensor-related tools. Usage context is implied by the word 'List' and the field list, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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