get_vehicle_state

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return categories (dimensions, status, kinematics, timestamp) but does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions, or potential side effects. The name 'get' implies safety, but explicit disclosure is absent.

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 concise, well-structured with bullet points, and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and then details the return content without redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the categories of returned data, and includes a timestamp note. There are no gaps for this level of complexity.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high. The description adds no parameter semantics (none exist) but provides return structure, which is not directly about 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 specifies the tool retrieves comprehensive vehicle state including dimensions, status, and kinematics. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('vehicle state'), and mentions it is a unified tool that combines data, which hints at its advantage over separate monitoring tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 as a one-stop for vehicle state via 'unified tool', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative sibling tools like monitor_motion_state or get_detected_objects. No when-not or context-based recommendations are provided.

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