lc_get_sensor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch' (presumably read-only) but does not confirm this, nor does it disclose permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but it is arguably under-specified. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. A slightly longer description with parameter context would be more beneficial without losing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description is not complete. It does not explain what the response contains, possible errors, or permissions required. The agent would need additional context to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the tool description does not add meaningful explanations for the parameters. It mentions 'by sensor ID' and 'for an explicit org' which loosely correspond to sensor_id and oid, but provides no format, constraints, or examples. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'one sensor by sensor ID', and the scope 'for an explicit org'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like lc_list_sensors (returns multiple sensors) and lc_find_sensors_by_hostname (searches by hostname).

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 implies usage when you have a specific sensor ID and org ID, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No contrasting guidance with sibling tools like lc_get_sensor_isolation_status or lc_get_sensor_seal_status is provided.

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