list_sensors

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are summarized and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or what happens when the fleet exceeds the limit ceiling — gaps that matter for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the returned-field summary and the limit semantics. Every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is listing return fields when an output schema already exists.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values yet still does so helpfully. For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations, the coverage of purpose, fields, and limit range makes it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'limit caps how many records are returned (1–1000).' That supplies both meaning and the valid range the schema lacks, though the default of 100 is left unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the agents/sensors registered on the cluster') plus scope ('summarized'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like search_inventory or summarize_cluster_posture, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Explicitly says what the tool is for: 'Use this to inventory the fleet and spot which hosts run an enforcing agent vs. visibility-only.' That is a clear usage context, but it offers no exclusions or pointer to alternatives for filtered/targeted queries.

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