get_battery_profiles

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: the exact returned fields, the 0.01 V unit scaling, and the derivation rule floor(tension / vbat_max_cell_voltage) + 1 — details an agent could not infer from the empty schema.

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 with no filler; the field list and unit is front-loaded and the cell-count formula follows as supporting detail. The only structural weakness is that it enumerates the return payload before stating plainly that the tool reads the profiles.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: field names, units, and the cell-count formula. For a read-only, zero-parameter getter whose annotations cover the safety profile, that is nearly everything an agent needs; error/absence behavior is the only unaddressed gap.

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 and the schema is empty, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies the call is unparameterized — it simply returns the profiles — so nothing is left ambiguous here.

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?

States a specific resource — 'Les 3 profils batterie' — with the version gate (Betaflight 2026.6+) and the exact field set, which cleanly separates it from telemetry siblings like get_battery and get_battery_state. It never states the retrieval verb explicitly, and it does not name get_battery_config or set_battery_profile to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 '(Betaflight 2026.6+)' qualifier is a real usage constraint, telling the agent this call is only meaningful on newer firmware. Beyond that, there is no when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of how it differs from get_battery_config or get_battery_state, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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