get_sensor

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clarifies that `sensor_id` is required and defines allowed `host` formats, which is useful behavior/context. However, it does not disclose return-value shape, error behavior, or whether the API has any side effects (though a GET is reasonably implied). This is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose first, then explains parameters. Every sentence contributes essential information. It is concise, though it could slightly improve structure by separating parameter details into a clearer format.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description provides the required ID source and host format, which is sufficient for calling the tool. Minor gaps are lack of error/not-found behavior and no explicit statement that this is a read-only operation, but for a simple get-by-ID tool the context is nearly complete.

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 description fully compensates by explaining what `host` can be (console name, ID, or composite ID with MAC:numericId format) and that `sensor_id` is required and comes from `list_sensors`. This adds meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 tool retrieves details for a single Protect sensor by ID, with a specific verb (get), resource (sensor), and identifier requirement. It also differentiates it from the sibling `list_sensors` by noting the ID comes from there, so an agent can distinguish this single-item read tool from the broader list tool.

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 explicitly states the required parameter (`sensor_id`) and tells the agent how to obtain it (from `list_sensors`), which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't mention when to avoid this tool or alternatives beyond that implicit distinction, but the context of fetching a single sensor versus listing all sensors is clear.

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