get_temperature_sensors

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

Annotations already signal readOnly (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: platform-specific behavior on macOS vs Linux/Windows, and the nature of returned data (groups with current, high, and critical thresholds). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds platform-specific nuances. Every sentence contributes meaning—no fluff, no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 params, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, platform differences, and the threshold information. There are no significant gaps for a read-only monitoring tool.

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 the schema covers everything trivially (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description need not explain parameters that don't exist. The description focuses on behavior rather than irrelevant parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns CPU and motherboard temperature sensor readings.' The verb 'Returns' plus the specific resource (temperature sensors) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage or get_gpu_usage.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (for temperature readings) and explicitly notes platform limitations (macOS returns alternatives). However, it does not name any specific alternative tool or state explicit 'use this when / not when' guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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