get_cell_voltages

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 unit (mV) and scope (one battery), and the read-only nature is implied by the name 'get'. However, it doesn't mention return format, error conditions, or any side effects. The context is minimal but not misleading.

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 two concise sentences: the first front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds a use case. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, this description provides enough context: what data is returned (cell voltages in mV), scope (one battery), and a use case. It lacks detail about the exact return structure (e.g., array with cell indices), but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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% because the 'id' parameter has a description ('Alias (Bat1/Bat2/Bat3) or serial number'). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (individual cell voltages in mV) and scope (one battery), and adds a use case for imbalance detection. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'returns' or 'lists'), relying on the tool name 'get' to convey the action, and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_cell_stats.

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 context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for detecting cell imbalance.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent. Without naming when not to use it, it falls short of a 5.

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