List sensors

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that 'The status filter applies client-side after fetch', which is a non-obvious behavioral nuance. It also enumerates the returned attributes, but does not discuss pagination, permissions, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences pack the purpose, usage context, and a behavioral caveat without redundant words. The structure front-loads the core purpose, then adds a clear use-case, and finishes with a relevant implementation detail.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers what data is returned, when to use it in the broader tool ecosystem, and a critical behavioral detail (client-side filtering). The only minor omission is parameter enum values, but the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema make the description sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It adds meaning only for 'status' by explaining it is applied client-side, but does not clarify valid values or the 'connection_status' parameter's semantics. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a limited extent, but the lack of enum values or descriptions leaves room for ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Returns every Tenable OT sensor in the deployment with its current status...' which clearly specifies a verb, resource, and target attributes. It also differentiates from sibling tools by positioning the tool as a visibility check before using query_assets/query_events, making its purpose distinct.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to verify visibility coverage before drawing conclusions from query_assets / query_events' and explains the key rationale ('an offline sensor means absence of evidence, not evidence of absence'). This is direct when-to-use guidance with named alternatives and a logical grounding.

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