lc_export_sensors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the export returns. The agent has no insight into side effects or constraints.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though additional structure (e.g., separating purpose from details) would improve readability.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the sensor manifest contains, how the export is returned (e.g., file, data stream), or handle error cases. An agent would lack sufficient context to reliably use this 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 only parameter 'oid' is not explained in the description. While the name suggests it is an org ID, the description does not confirm this or provide format details. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 the action (Export) and the resource (full sensor manifest for an org). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lc_list_sensors by specifying 'manifest' rather than just listing. However, it could be more precise about what a 'sensor manifest' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_list_sensors or lc_find_sensors_by_hostname. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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