get_sensor_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the kind of information returned (activation date, remaining lifetime, connection status) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose how the tool behaves if no sensor is active, if connection fails, or whether it requires prior configuration. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a clear use case. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what data it returns, and when to use it. It lacks details about error states or return format, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequately 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The information about what data is retrieved compensates for the lack of parameters in explaining what the tool does.

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: to retrieve information about the active FreeStyle Libre sensor, listing specific data points (activation date, remaining lifetime, connection status). The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is well-defined, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on glucose data or configuration.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to check if sensor is working properly or needs replacement.' This gives clear usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool names imply other tools for glucose-specific tasks, but the description does not cross-reference them.

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