timps_battery_analyst

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it reads battery info (non-destructive) and generates kill commands (not executes them), which is transparent about its mutating potential. However, it does not fully explain the exact nature of the kill commands (e.g., whether they are suggestions or ready-to-run) or any side effects, leaving a small gap.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value—method, data sources, and output. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function and its output. It could provide more detail on the format of the generated kill commands or whether they are executed automatically, but it covers the essential behavior for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 schema covers everything (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of params.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Identify battery drainers') and elaborates the method (reads battery %, health cycle count, ranks by CPU usage) and output (generates kill commands). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like system_optimizer or full_checkup by focusing on battery-specific diagnostics.

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 clear context about when to use (battery drain detection) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios. Since it clearly targets battery issues, it is usable without confusion, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other diagnostic tools.

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