Batería

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the specific battery attributes returned, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like whether the tool requires special permissions, whether some fields may be unavailable on certain hardware, or the format of the response. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose and then lists the specific data points. It is efficient and contains no filler. It could be slightly improved by adding a brief usage note, but as-is it is concise and well-structured.

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-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lists the output fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. However, it does not mention potential platform variations (e.g., some fields may be null on certain devices) or whether the tool returns a single object or a structured payload. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor 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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to rely on. The description compensates by clearly enumerating the data fields the tool returns, which is the only semantic information an agent needs. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by explaining what the output contains.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving battery information, and enumerates the specific data points (percentage, charging status, power source, time remaining, cycles, health, condition, temperature). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_energy or get_system_info, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 description implies usage context: it is a read-only informational tool for battery status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_energy or get_system_info, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer basic usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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