sensors_get_telemetry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the mechanism ('via lm_sensors / sysfs') but does not disclose potential permission requirements, failure modes, or whether the returned data includes units or raw values. For a read operation, 'Retrieve' implies no mutation, but this is not explicit and no safety profile is provided.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds a parenthetical list of sensor categories and the implementation source. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.

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 low-complexity, parameterless tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it retrieves (telemetry types) and how it does so (lm_sensors / sysfs). The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing returned categories, though units and data structure are not described. This is adequate for a simple read-only call but leaves minor ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, no compensation is needed; the description correctly omits parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('hardware telemetry') with concrete examples (temperatures, fans, voltages, power). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'sensors_get_cpu_freqs' by explicitly excluding frequencies and focusing on other sensor categories, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sensors_get_cpu_freqs or other process/read tools. The only cue is the tool's name and purpose, with no exclusions or conditions, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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