discover_sensors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a network scan (port scanning) and returns specific data fields, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., network load), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with network resources.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome efficiently. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly communicates the tool's purpose and output, making it easy to parse without 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 the tool's complexity (network scanning with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a basic overview but is incomplete. It mentions the return data structure but not the format (e.g., JSON array), error cases, or scanning scope (e.g., default ports). For a tool that performs active network operations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly states no parameters are required ('Scan ports...' implies a default scan behavior), adding clarity beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it effectively communicates the lack of inputs.

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 action ('Scan ports for active SSH-tunneled Corelight sensor Grafana instances') and the resource ('sensors'), specifying it returns connected sensors with specific attributes (hostname, port, Grafana version, Prometheus status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sensor_status' or 'explore_sensor_metrics' by focusing on discovery rather than status checking or metric exploration.

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 implies usage for discovering active sensors via port scanning, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sensor_status' (which might check known sensors) or 'explore_sensor_metrics' (which queries metrics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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