get_sensor_config

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-mutating, local read. The description adds only the list of sensors covered, which is useful but not rich behavioral context (e.g., return format, whether it reflects live or stored config). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded phrase that efficiently states what the tool does. It is slightly terse and lacks a verb, but wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what configuration is retrieved but doesn't say how it relates to other config getters or whether it returns a structured object. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and specifies what information is returned. No parameter semantics to add.

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 names the resource ('Configuration des capteurs') and enumerates the sensor types (accelerometer, barometer, magnetometer), so the agent knows it retrieves sensor configuration. However, it lacks a clear verb, reading as a noun phrase rather than stating 'returns' or 'gets'. It also doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_filter_config or get_advanced_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_imu_data or get_attitude, which may overlap in sensor-related data. No context of use is provided.

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