List sensors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — that disabled sensors are included, so the result set is not filtered by state — but says nothing about ordering, size, or failure 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned fields. No filler, nothing repeated from the 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only nature, the description's field enumeration effectively stands in for a return-value spec. The remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from read_sensors/get_sensor_map in a crowded sensor-related sibling 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments exist.

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?

Names a specific resource (configured sensors) and enumerates the fields returned (id, type, mounting position, angle, range), and clarifies scope with 'enabled or not'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like read_sensors (live readings) or get_sensor_map, which an agent could easily confuse with a configuration listing.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. The parenthetical 'enabled or not' hints that this is a static/config enumeration rather than a live read, which is a weak implicit cue, but nothing tells the agent to prefer this over read_sensors or get_sensor_map.

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