read_sensor

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It only mentions that values are returned with units, which is minimal. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error handling, permissions, side effects, or the structure of the response. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and the second gives examples. It is front-loaded and efficient, with every word earning 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 simplicity of the tool, the description is still incomplete. It lacks guidance on how to discover supported sensors, what happens with invalid sensor names, and how units are formatted. The output schema may cover return structure, but the input parameter semantics and error behavior are not clarified. An agent would need to make assumptions to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples of sensor names but does not explicitly explain that the 'sensors' parameter accepts a sensor name or an array of names, nor does it clarify format, case sensitivity, or constraints. The examples imply the usage but do not fully cover the parameter's semantics.

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 tool reads one or several sensors and returns values with units, with concrete examples (RPM, SPEED, COOLANT_TEMP, INTAKE_PRESSURE). It is a specific verb+resource and is easily distinguished from siblings like read_dtc (diagnostic codes) and list_supported_sensors (listing sensors). No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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. The description does not mention that list_supported_sensors should be consulted first to see available sensors, nor does it state any exclusions or specific contexts. The usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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