get_sensors

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, yet the description still adds real substance: on Windows the processor temperature depends on vendor drivers, firmware thermal zones substitute when present and are often absent on desktops, and processor power comes from the energy meter. That tells the agent to expect missing or partial readings. It does not say how missing sensors are surfaced (omitted vs. null vs. error), which keeps it off a 5.

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 content is packed into one front-loaded sentence, with the payload (what is returned) first and the platform caveat second. It is dense with nested parentheticals, which costs a little readability, but no sentence is filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, the threshold context and the platform caveats well. The remaining gap is that it never explains how individual sensors are keyed or grouped in the response, which matters for a tool that can return many sensors.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is a 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate about inputs, and it correctly spends no words on arguments.

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 concretely what the tool returns: temperatures, fan speeds and power draw for every sensor, enumerated by location (package/cores, GPUs, disks, memory, NICs, thermal zones, fans) plus high/critical marks. That is far more specific than the name alone. It never distinguishes itself from the overlapping siblings get_cpu, get_gpus, get_disks or get_hardware, 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?

Usage is only implied: mentioning the hardware's high and critical marks suggests the tool is for thermal/throttling headroom checks rather than raw inventory. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no routing advice against the many overlapping per-component siblings, which an agent selecting among get_cpu, get_gpus, get_disks and get_hardware genuinely needs.

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