list_sensors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a read-only list operation and specifies return fields. However, it does not explain the effect of the optional env parameter or any potential filtering, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, usage guidance, and an alternative. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The description covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance, and an output schema exists. However, the unexplained env parameter is a notable omission, and no mention is made of pagination or result limits. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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. It fails to mention the single optional parameter 'env' at all. The agent receives no guidance on what env does or how to use it, leaving a critical gap for a listed parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all sensors with status and target jobs, and explicitly differentiates from get_tick_history for the troubleshooting case. The verb 'List' and resource 'sensors' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_jobs or list_schedules, earning top marks.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' section and gives a conditional alternative: if a sensor is RUNNING but not producing runs, use get_tick_history. This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives, exceeding the minimum.

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