keystone_new_sensor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what files are stamped (`scripts/<name>.sh` or `prompts/<name>.md`), exit code semantics (0 = pass, non-zero = fail), and PASS/FAIL reporting for inferential mode. This gives the agent a solid behavioral model, though it omits details about `force` behavior.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bullet lists for modes and kind values. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes the information quickly scannable for an agent.

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 existence of an output schema (which likely documents return values) and the moderate complexity of a scaffolding tool, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what gets created, how it runs, and how it reports. It could be more complete by explaining `force` semantics or prerequisites, but overall it's sufficient.

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 must compensate. It thoroughly explains `mode` (computational vs inferential with full semantics) and enumerates valid `kind` values, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, `force` is not described at all, and `name` is left implicit, leaving a coverage gap for two of four parameters.

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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Scaffold a new sensor + its matching implementation.' It further differentiates from siblings by detailing the sensor-specific artifact types (scripts vs prompts) and execution model, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use each mode (computational for shell scripts, inferential for reasoning prompts) and explains kind as an informational category. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or reference sibling tools, but the mode selection guidance is actionable and sufficient for an agent.

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