get_server_sensors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the bare-metal eligibility constraint and the sensor categories, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what a caller gets when sensors are unavailable on the target host.

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?

Two short clauses, no filler, and the content enumeration is front-loaded ahead of the scoping caveat. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential distinction (bare-metal) that an agent needs to call it correctly. It stops just short of clarifying behavior on hosts that lack exposed sensors.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format or constraint detail about the id beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (hardware sensor readings) and enumerates the content types (temperatures, voltages, fans), which cleanly distinguishes it from neighbors like get_power_status and get_network_status. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Bare-metal only' is an effective when-not condition that rules out virtual servers, so the scope is implied. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when a caller would prefer this over get_server or get_power_status, leaving routing to inference.

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