Sensor readings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Naming the BMC/Redfish source is genuinely useful (implies out-of-band access that can fail if the BMC is unreachable), but it never states that the operation is read-only, what happens on BMC timeout, or how results are shaped — gaps that matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

It is a single short fragment with zero waste and the key content front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than crisp — brevity here costs information rather than buying clarity.

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 an unannotated tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should say more about what a reading looks like (names, units, status/thresholds) and the failure mode. As written, an agent still cannot predict the call's behavior beyond 'reads sensors'.

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 single parameter include_absent has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all, yet its meaning (include sensors that are present but not reporting/absent?) is not self-evident. The description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (sensor readings) and the exact data returned (temperatures, fans, voltages), plus the source (BMC via Redfish), so an agent knows what it is. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like system_info or media_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives. The implied use case (checking hardware health/thermal state out-of-band) is never articulated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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