get_power_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it involves any side effects, or any prerequisites such as recent snapshot availability. It only describes the output metrics and data source, leaving operational behavior unclear.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the specific metrics returned. There is no wasted verbiage, and every phrase adds value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It lists all the computed metrics and the data source. It does not explain the exact time range covered by 'intraday' or how to interpret the values, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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, so the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema info. The description provides context about what the returned stats represent, which is sufficient.

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 what the tool returns: charge/discharge power statistics including peak kW, average kW, C-rate, and fraction of samples above 0.5C. It also specifies the data source (intraday snapshots), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_cell_stats or get_lifetime_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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions 'from intraday snapshots' as a data source, but does not say when this tool is preferable to get_energy_history or get_cell_stats, nor are any exclusions or alternatives named.

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