Tesla State History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the semantic content of the result (state transitions between awake and sleeping). It says nothing about permissions, data freshness/rate limits, or granularity, so it is only partially transparent for a history-read tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned resource, with the interpretive sentence second. The vampire-drain sentence earns its place by giving intent, though 'online, asleep, offline' and 'awake vs sleeping' restate the same idea.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary and parameters are fully documented. What is missing is the relationship to the close sibling tesla_vampire_drain, which an agent must choose between; without it the definition is adequate but not 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 100%, with defaults and the start_date-overrides-days interaction already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (vehicle state transitions) and enumerates the values it reports (online, asleep, offline), so an agent knows exactly what data this returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling tesla_vampire_drain, which it actually points at by citing 'vampire drain analysis' as the use case.

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?

It gives one implied use case ('useful for vampire drain analysis'), which tells the agent something about intent. However, it never states when to prefer this over tesla_vampire_drain (which appears to compute drain directly), tesla_status, or tesla_live, and gives no exclusions or preconditions.

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