librenms_get_device_sensors

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation (via 'Get') and mentions the optional filter, but fails to disclose authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves agents uninformed about important behavioral aspects.

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 sentence of 12 words, making it very concise. It front-loads the key action and resource. While it could be slightly improved by structuring the filter as a separate clause, it is efficient and to the point.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, potential error conditions, or how the sensor data is structured. An agent would need additional context to use this tool effectively, especially with no output schema to rely on.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, placing the burden on the description. The description adds value by giving examples for sensor_type (temperature, voltage, state), clarifying the optional filter parameter. However, the required hostname parameter is not explicitly described beyond being implied as the device identifier. This is adequate but incomplete compensation.

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 retrieves device sensors with an optional filter, listing example sensor types. This effectively communicates the primary action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like librenms_get_device_health. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all related sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as librenms_get_device_health or other librenms tools. The description implies usage via the filter clarification but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references. This hinders an agent's decision-making.

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