List Sensors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a meaningful failure trait: it raises when a code location is unavailable rather than returning a partial list that could be mistaken for the complete set. It does not state read-only semantics, permissions, or whether the env parameter affects visibility, but the error contract is a genuinely useful disclosure.

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 purpose, then returns, then usage, then edge-case behavior — a clean progression with no filler. The return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, alternative routing, and error semantics well enough for an agent to call it correctly, and the output schema means return values did not need restating. The only real gap is the undocumented env parameter.

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?

There is one parameter (env) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be explained — and it never mentions env at all. The rich description of return fields does not compensate for the undocumented input 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all sensors') plus scope ('with their status and target jobs'), and enumerates the returned fields so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_jobs, list_schedules, and get_tick_history.

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 an explicit 'When to use' clause (check which sensors are active and what jobs they trigger) and names the alternative tool get_tick_history with the exact condition that selects it (RUNNING but not producing runs). Nothing is left to inference.

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