list_history_stats_sensors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses scoping to the managed package. It says nothing about pagination, whether disabled or orphaned sensors are included, ordering, or result size limits, which matters for a list operation over an unknown population.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a zero-argument list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits what the returned records look like and whether the list can be filtered. It covers the operation but not the shape of the result.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning could need elaboration, and the description introduces none.

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 verb (List) and resource (history_stats sensors) plus a scope qualifier (in the managed package), so the operation is immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular get_history_stats_sensor sibling, though 'List all' versus the get/upsert/delete siblings implies enumeration.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings get_history_stats_sensor, upsert_history_stats_sensor, or delete_history_stats_sensor. The only hint is the plural 'List all', leaving the agent to infer the intent from the name.

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