list_sensors

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation lists all sensors on a Protect console and explains accepted host formats, but it does not mention pagination, authorization needs, or whether the result set is limited. 'List' does imply a read-only operation, so this is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second documents the only parameter's format. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary background.

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 simple one-parameter listing tool, the description plus output schema cover the essential calling requirements: the resource, the scope, and the host format. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing, but the tool is still usable without it.

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 schema only declares host as a required string and provides 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that host can be a console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format, giving the agent concrete guidance for constructing the argument.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all sensors on a Protect console.' It clearly identifies the action, the object, and the scope, and it is easy to distinguish from the sibling get_sensor and update_sensor tools because it explicitly says 'all sensors.'

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'List' and the resource scope, but the description does not explicitly contrast this with get_sensor, update_sensor, or other Protect-related list tools. It gives no 'when to use' versus alternatives guidance.

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