prtg_get_sensor_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get ... history' conveys a read-only, time-series-oriented behavior, and 'actual monitoring/performance data' clarifies what is returned. However, it does not describe the response structure, whether multiple channels are included, or any constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying parenthetical that helps distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 schema fully documents parameters, and the description clarifies the tool's purpose. However, with no output schema and no explicit guidance about when to use this versus related sensor/channel tools, the description leaves moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Get channel measurement history ... for a sensor.' The parenthetical 'the actual monitoring/performance data' clarifies that this returns measured data rather than sensor metadata, which distinguishes it from siblings like prtg_get_sensor.

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 phrase 'actual monitoring/performance data' implies this tool should be used when historical measurements are needed, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as prtg_get_sensor_status_summary or prtg_get_channel. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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