get_module_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that the tool computes aggregates from live cell voltages and flags modules with persistent outlier cells, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, define 'persistent', or describe the return format. Given the absence of annotations, this is a partial 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, compact sentence with two meaningful clauses: one stating the main output and one highlighting the outlier flagging feature. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the core output and a distinctive feature, though it leaves 'persistent' and 'delta' undefined. For a one-parameter get operation, this is adequate but leaves slight ambiguity about edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Alias (Bat1/Bat2/Bat3) or serial number'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: it produces per-module voltage aggregates (min/max/mean/delta) and flags modules with persistent outlier cells. It specifies the resource ('one battery') and differentiates from siblings like get_cell_stats by focusing on module-level aggregation and outlier flagging. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', the meaning is unambiguous.

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 a use case (checking module health from live cell voltages) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. Without such guidance, an agent may not know to choose this over get_cell_stats or get_cell_voltages for related needs.

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