list_ips_sensors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does describe the return payload keys (status, count, sensors, message), which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions required, pagination or result-size limits, or whether the listing is read-only — all relevant for a list tool that could return large result sets.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by a short domain gloss and clean Args/Returns sections. Every section earns its place, though the Returns block largely duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

Parameters and return shape are well covered, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However, with no annotations at all, the description leaves behavioral questions (permissions, pagination, ordering) unanswered for a list operation over a potentially large object set.

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% and both parameters have null defaults, so the description must compensate — and it does. It explains that adom falls back to the DEFAULT_ADOM env var or 'root', and that name_filter is a partial-match filter, neither of which is inferable from the bare 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List IPS sensors') scoped to an ADOM, and the follow-up sentence explains what an IPS sensor is. It distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like create_ips_sensor or delete_ips_sensor by the verb, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_ips_sensor for single-item retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the ADOM scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to get_ips_sensor for detailed retrieval of a single sensor. An agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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