monitor_fans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as return format, polling frequency, or whether readings are instantaneous or averaged. It merely states what it reads without any extra transparency.

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 extremely concise, which is good, but it is under-specified. It is a single noun phrase rather than a clear sentence. It is not front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load. While concise, it lacks sufficient information to be fully effective.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the return value represents (e.g., RPM values, sensor list, current readings). It only says 'readings' without detailing the output or any side effects. Given the simplicity, this is a notable gap.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate since there are none.

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 the resource (fan speed sensors) and implies the action (readings). It is specific enough to distinguish from other monitors like monitor_cpu, though it lacks an explicit verb. It is not a tautology but could be clearer.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions or conditions. The context implies it's for reading fan speed, but no explicit routing or comparison with sibling monitoring tools.

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