get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the default aggregation over all chargers when 'charger' is omitted and defines the output categories returned: house draw, car draw, and active limits. It does not discuss response format or edge cases, but the read-only nature is clear from the get verb and the subject matter.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core result and then providing the aggregation default. There is no filler, repetition of schema property names, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers the operation, the default parameter behavior, and the nature of the returned data. It does not explicitly route to sibling tools, but the instantaneous-status framing and sibling names provide enough context; an output schema is absent, but the described readings are sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents both optional parameters, and the description adds meaningful behavior for the charger parameter: omitting it reports all chargers. This clarifies the default beyond the schema's note that the parameter is unnecessary when only one charger is configured. Element semantics are left to the schema, which covers them adequately.

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 states that the tool reports 'charging status and instantaneous power' for chargers, enumerating the key readings: house draw, car draw, and active limits. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling history, configuration, and schedule tools.

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 'instantaneous' wording implies current-state usage as opposed to historical data, but the description never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to call this tool. The only usage guidance is about omitting the charger parameter, which concerns invocation rather than tool selection.

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