Battery History Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool 'returns' data. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what happens for an unknown battery, or how the history is ordered or presented.

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 with no filler and a clear noun phrase, 'charge-cycle history.' Its brevity is efficient, though it contributes to the lack of parameter and usage detail elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally usable. However, it still does not explain how to identify the battery or when to choose this tool over related battery tools, so an agent must rely on external context.

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 schema's only property has no description, and the tool description merely repeats that a battery is needed. It does not specify whether the parameter should be an ID, name, serial, or some other identifier, so it does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('charge-cycle history') and picks out a distinct data view from siblings like battery_details_tool or battery_charge_tool. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provided about when to prefer this tool over battery_details_tool, battery_charge_tool, or other battery-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned; only the word 'history' implies a use case.

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