read_sensor

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

The description says 'configure,' which implies a side effect on the sensor port, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. It also fails to disclose whether the read is blocking, what value is returned, or how sensor_type affects the read. This contradicts the read-only annotation.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and several closely related sibling tools, the description does not tell an agent what the read returns or how it differs from raw and relative reads. This is incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of port or sensor_type beyond the schema's enum names. The phrase 'one sensor port' weakly maps to the parameters but adds no real semantic detail, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('configure and read') and resource ('one sensor port'), so an agent can grasp the general purpose. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like read_sensor_raw or read_sensor_relative, and 'configure' is slightly ambiguous about whether configuration is persisted.

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 about when to use this tool instead of read_sensor_raw, read_sensor_relative, wait_sensor, or sensor_stream. The selection decision is left entirely to inference from tool names, which is insufficient for reliable tool choice.

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