get_capacity_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does so by disclosing the calculation method and the SOC accuracy limitation. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe output format, but the 'get' name and 'estimates' phrasing imply a non-mutating calculation.

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 tight sentences lead with the tool's purpose, followed by a key accuracy condition. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant information.

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 the simple tool shape (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context about purpose, formula, and accuracy. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but 'per battery' and the formula give a sufficient indication of what to expect.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional parameter 'id' with its accepted values (alias or serial number) and default behavior (omit for all batteries). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it falls at the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 function: estimating real usable capacity via a specific formula (remainingKwh ÷ SOC%) and comparing it to rated capacity per battery. This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools that measure other battery metrics such as health or autonomy.

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 provides a clear usage context by noting that the estimate is most accurate at 20–80% SOC, implying when the tool should be used for reliable results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it offers a condition that guides appropriate usage.

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