Batteries List Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation, and 'with next estimated charge times' gives some insight into the output behavior. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, scope (all batteries vs. filtered), or any other operational caveats, which would be valuable given the absence of annotations.

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 action and target resource. It contains no wasted words or redundant information, making it an exemplar of concise documentation.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it communicates the primary purpose and output focus. Slight ambiguity remains over whether it lists all batteries or only a subset, and 'next estimated charge times' is not elaborated, but the overall definition is adequate for a simple list operation.

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 input schema is an empty object, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there is nothing to document; this matches expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('batteries'), and adds 'with next estimated charge times' to convey the output focus. This distinguishes it from siblings like batteries_due_tool and batteries_overdue_tool, which imply filtered views, and battery_details_tool, which is singular. An agent can readily identify the tool's purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batteries_due_tool or batteries_overdue_tool. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or alternative routing is mentioned.

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