list_supported_sensors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists supported sensor PIDs and that the output names are exact for read_sensor. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., empty list when no sensors are supported), prerequisites (like requiring an active connection), or any performance characteristics. This is a minimal disclosure for a simple tool, but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second gives a direct usage hint. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (no parameters, simple list operation) and the existence of an output schema (which likely describes the return format), the description covers the essential purpose and usage hint. It doesn't mention prerequisites like connection status, but for a simple list tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. The mention of 'exact names' pertains to the output, not parameters. Baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters.

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 action and resource: 'List live sensor PIDs discovered as supported by the vehicle.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_sensor (which reads a single sensor) and get_vehicle_info (which returns general info). The second sentence reinforces purpose by indicating the names are meant for read_sensor.

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 when to use this tool: before read_sensor, to obtain the exact sensor names. It explicitly instructs to use these names with read_sensor, providing a usage pattern. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools.

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