get_autonomy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behaviors (estimating time to discharge/charge, optional projection) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe to call, nor does it mention edge cases like missing parameters. The low risk of a 'get' tool mitigates this, but the description could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous words. It is concise and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only estimation tool with three optional parameters. It explains the main outputs and the optional projection feature, but it does not mention what happens when optional parameters are omitted or any limitations. Given the simplicity of the tool, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by linking minSocPct to 'minSoc' and sunriseAt to the 'SOC projection', but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. No extra value beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 provides a fleet autonomy estimate, specifically hours until minSoc and hours to full charge, plus an optional SOC projection. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_health or get_energy_history.

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 for fleet autonomy assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Since sibling tools cover different aspects (health, alerts, energy), the implicit context is sufficient but lacks explicit guidance.

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