query_sensors

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 states the tool queries sensors, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the results take. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a query tool. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., sensor readings, metadata, or a list of sensors), potential error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that interacts with IoT sensors—which may involve real-time data, permissions, or rate limits—this is inadequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying location-based filtering, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('query') and resource ('IoT sensors'), and specifies the query dimension ('by location'). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also query sensors, though none of the listed siblings appear to be direct alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other tools that might query sensors differently (e.g., by time range or sensor ID). With no explicit usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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