get_server_sensors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral and contextual information by scoping the tool to bare-metal servers and listing the sensor families covered, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing error cases or units, but for a read-only sensor endpoint the added scope is meaningful.

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 compact sentence with a parenthetical list of sensor types and one important constraint. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose, sensor categories, and hardware scope for selection and invocation. An output schema is absent, so result structure and units would have been welcome, but they are not essential for calling 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?

The only parameter, 'id', is already fully documented in the schema as 'ID сервера', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (hardware sensors) and the contents (temperatures, voltages, fans), and clearly limits the operation to bare-metal servers. It lacks an explicit action verb, but 'readings' combined with the tool name makes the retrieval purpose clear. The bare-metal qualifier also helps distinguish it from VM-related siblings.

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 phrase 'Только для bare-metal' explicitly restricts usage to bare-metal hardware, giving the agent a clear selection criterion. It does not name a specific alternative for virtual servers, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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