sensor_attach

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral disclosure, such as side effects, validation, or what happens if a sensor already exists. With annotations present, the description should still add value beyond them.

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 that is too terse to be useful. While concise, it lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.

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 complexity of the spec parameter and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, or typical usage patterns, relying entirely on the schema which has no descriptions.

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 by explaining parameters. It only mentions sensor types but provides no details about the spec object's properties (position, direction, streaming, etc.), leaving the agent blind.

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 it attaches sensors and lists the types: camera, lidar, radar, ultrasonic, GPS, IMU, or vehicle-state. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like sensor_remove (removes) and sensor_poll (reads).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent with no decision-making support.

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