live_sensors

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

Despite no annotations, the description transparently discloses the data sources (lm-sensors, NVIDIA driver on Linux) and implies real-time reading. It conveys that the tool is a read-only snapshot without side effects. However, it does not mention potential permission requirements or fallback behavior if sensors are unavailable.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides meaningful detail. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (which likely defines the return structure), the description sufficiently covers input (none) and relevant dependencies. A minor gap is the lack of mention of platform restrictions beyond Linux or whether root access is required.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by describing the returned sensor categories and dependencies, which helps the agent understand the output without needing to examine the output schema.

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 states it provides a 'LIVE sensor snapshot right now' and lists specific categories (temperatures, fan RPM, battery, voltages, power) and dependencies (lm-sensors, NVIDIA driver). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cpu_status or gpu_status which focus on individual subsystems.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as system_snapshot or individual sensor tools. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the implicit real-time context.

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