get_sensors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the enumerated metric types add meaningful context about the returned data. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication, or error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and immediately follows with the object. It contains no filler or redundant words, and every element (resource and metric examples) earns its place.

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 (0 params, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and expected data content. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists. It could slightly improve by clarifying whether all sensors are returned or if there is any default filtering, but overall it's complete for a basic listing tool.

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 input schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related noise.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'sensor devices' and explicitly enumerates the metrics (illuminance, temperature, humidity, occupancy, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_sensor' (singular) and 'get_devices' by narrowing to sensors and their metrics.

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 clear context (list all sensors and their metrics) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. The plural 'sensor devices' and inclusion of metrics imply this is the go-to for broad sensor listings, but no explicit 'when-to-use' is given.

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