battery_metrics

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

The description indicates a read operation, which is consistent with a non-destructive tool. However, it does not elaborate on data freshness, error handling, or permission requirements. Since there are no annotations, a bit more context would improve transparency.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is optimal for a simple tool with no inputs.

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?

Given zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects. It could be slightly improved by specifying that the data represents a current snapshot, but overall it is largely 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?

No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. The description appropriately focuses on the output, which is consistent with the baseline score of 4 for tools with zero parameters.

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 clearly states the action 'Get' and specifies three data points (battery status, charge level, charging state), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like cpu_metrics or disk_metrics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. The implied context is that it is for battery-related queries, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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