get_ips_sensor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (status/sensor/message), including that 'entries' holds signature filters/overrides, but says nothing about permissions, error cases beyond a 'message' key, or whether the ADOM must be locked or the sensor must already exist.

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?

Docstring-style Args/Returns layout is front-loaded and easy to scan, with the purpose in the first line. The Returns section is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essential contract is present. What is missing is how to obtain a valid ADOM/sensor name and what happens on failure, which matters more here because there are no annotations to fall back on.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema only exposes bare property names 'adom' and 'name'. The Args block restates them as 'ADOM name' and 'IPS sensor name' — a marginal gloss that gives no format, case, or lookup guidance 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about an IPS sensor.' It is clearly distinguishable by verb from create/update/delete/list_ips_sensor siblings, but it never names those siblings or scopes the difference explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of list_ips_sensors as the way to discover a sensor name, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which this tool should be preferred over inspecting a sensor via another route.

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