omniseek_sensor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that the sensor diffs mechanically via a (source, source_id) fingerprint against baseline, that scheduled runs happen automatically in the live service, that unknown actions or missing required args return an error, and that detect_absence only applies to stable sources. These details go well beyond the bare schema.

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 long but well-structured with action-specific bullets and front-loaded usage guidance. Nearly every sentence adds operational value. There is minor redundancy — 'standing queries with novelty detection' and 'register a standing query that detects NEW results over time' restate the same idea — and the 'no omniseek-eye server' note is tangential, but the organization makes the density acceptable.

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 9-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers required arguments per action, defaults, scheduling behavior, return summaries, error handling, and edge cases like absence detection scoping. An agent has enough information to select actions, supply parameters, and anticipate results.

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 for every parameter. It does: action is enumerated with all four values, query is identified as required for create, sources/schedule/notify are explained, notify_if and notify_if_match semantics are detailed, sensor_id is tied to delete/run, and detect_absence is fully described. All 9 parameters receive meaningful explanation beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific purpose: 'MONITOR a query over time and be told only what's NEW — standing queries with novelty detection.' It clearly identifies the tool as a standing-query sensor rather than a one-shot search, distinguishing it from siblings like omniseek_search and omniseek_sources. The action-based breakdown (create/list/delete/run) further clarifies exactly what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when monitoring a query over time and wanting novelty detection. It also gives action-level guidance, such as using action='run' to trigger a sensor manually and action='create' to register one. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the use-case framing is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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