get_limit_headroom

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

With no annotations, the description defines the computed metric but doesn't disclose behavioral details such as return format, units, or behavior for multiple batteries. It implies a read operation but lacks explicit safety/permission context. The definition adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 short sentences: the first defines the tool's output, the second gives a use case. No fluff, front-loaded.

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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and situational context. It could mention specific output details, but it's adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 describes the single optional 'id' parameter with 100% coverage ('Alias (Bat1/Bat2/Bat3) or serial number; omit for all batteries'). The description does not add parameter information, so baseline 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 defines the metric as 'Headroom between current voltage/current and BMS protection limits,' which is specific to this tool and distinguishable from sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_health, get_cell_stats). The noun phrase effectively communicates the tool's function, and the tool name 'get_limit_headroom' reinforces it.

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 states it's 'useful for spotting packs running close to cutoff thresholds,' providing a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool when monitoring limit proximity.

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