get_battery_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add a genuine behavioral hint that no annotation provides — that health is reported as one of OK/WARNING/CRITICAL — plus the data categories returned. With no output schema, it could have said more (units, freshness, whether it reads live telemetry vs cached config), so a 3 is fair rather than a 4.

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 lists the payload. No filler, no redundant restatement of the name.

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 zero-argument read tool with safety annotations already in place, the description covers the essentials of what comes back. The remaining gap is sibling routing — nothing tells the agent how this differs from `get_battery` — which is minor here but real given how many battery-related siblings exist.

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; per the rubric, 0 params sets the baseline at 4. The description does not need to explain inputs and does not waste space pretending to.

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 (battery) and enumerates what the state report contains — cells, capacity, status. That is far more informative than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `get_battery` (or `get_battery_config` / `get_battery_profiles`), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this one.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative, despite `get_battery` and `get_battery_config` sitting in the same sibling set. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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