dagster_sensors_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by describing returned sensors and schedules with their state, but does not state that it is read-only, mention side effects, or describe pagination or authorization requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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?

The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the zero-parameter schema is simple. The description covers the resource and instance scope, but lacks usage context that would help an agent choose this over sibling tools.

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 parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not create confusion about parameters.

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 resource ('Sensors et schedules') and adds scope ('de l'instance avec leur état'), so an agent knows it retrieves sensor and schedule metadata with state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dagster_overview or dagster_list_runs, so it falls 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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the tool for sensor/schedule state rather than, for example, dagster_overview.

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