prtg_list_sensors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the response includes each sensor's current status and that the returned id is a key for follow-up calls. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but the schema documents limit/offset behavior, and 'list' clearly signals a read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first defines the tool and its output scope, and the second gives the key integration detail for follow-up calls. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 description is largely complete for a simple collection-list tool: it explains the resource, status return, and downstream id usage. There is no output schema, so the mention of id and status partially compensates, though a bit more detail about the result shape or explicit device-scoping behavior would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; its id-chaining note is about output/usage rather than parameters, which is acceptable but not extra param semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List sensors' and clarifies what sensors are ('individual checks - ping, HTTP, SNMP, etc. - attached to a device'). It also connects to sibling tools by explaining that each sensor's id feeds into prtg_get_sensor and prtg_get_sensor_data, which separates this list operation from detail/get operations.

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 gives clear context: if you need the individual checks on a device and their current status, this is the tool. The mention that ids chain into prtg_get_sensor and prtg_get_sensor_data implies the intended downstream usage, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_devices or when not to use this tool.

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