sensor_status

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 key behavioral traits: it provides a 'live performance snapshot' (implying real-time data), uses '5-min rate smoothing' (indicating data aggregation), and lists specific metrics. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, metrics, and behavioral detail (5-min rate smoothing). It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no redundant information, making every word earn its place.

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 moderate complexity (read-only performance monitoring), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the metrics returned and data smoothing, but lacks details on output format or error cases. It compensates well but could be more comprehensive.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sensor' documented as 'Sensor hostname. If omitted, uses first discovered sensor.' The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it does not discuss the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'live performance snapshot for a sensor', listing specific metrics (Gbps, kpps, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'explore_sensor_metrics' or 'query_sensor_metric' by focusing on a comprehensive snapshot rather than exploration or querying.

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 when a live performance snapshot is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explore_sensor_metrics' or 'sensor_performance_verdict'. It mentions the 5-min rate smoothing, which provides some context, but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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