add_sensor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool adds a sensor component and returns JSON metadata, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., platform must exist), potential side effects, or any destructive behavior. The explanation is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key action. While it could be slightly more compact, it efficiently conveys necessary information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits important contextual information such as prerequisites (scenario and platform must exist) and whether the operation is additive or overwrites existing sensors. The description is moderately 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter explanations in the description add significant value. Each parameter is explained with context: scenario_id is a UUID, platform_name is the target, sensor_type includes example values, and sensor_name is optional. This goes beyond the schema's title/type/default fields.

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: 'Add a sensor component to a platform.' This specific verb+resource (add + sensor) distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_mover and add_weapon. The tool name and description are consistent.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name implies it's for sensors, there is no mention of when not to use it or which other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., add_mover for movers). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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