get_fleet_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists included fields but does not explain what the summary aggregates (e.g., fleet-wide vs. per battery), units, or how metrics like 'worst cell imbalance' are calculated. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 directly states the tool's output type and contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 summary tool with no output schema, the description lists the key fields, which is helpful. However, it lacks context on the scope (fleet vs. individual), units, and output structure, leaving some ambiguity for the agent about exactly what will be returned.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no deduction is needed.

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 it provides a 'Compact health summary' and specifies the key fields: total energy, worst cell imbalance, and temperatures. While the verb 'get' is not explicitly restated, the intent is clear, and the content distinguishes it from per-battery tools via the 'fleet' scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_health or get_cell_stats. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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