battery_status

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 describe what information the tool reports (charge, charging status, temperature), which helps an agent anticipate the result. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how the optional serial parameter affects behavior, or any error behavior.

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 sentence listing three concrete battery attributes with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool and the core information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema is present, so the return value structure is presumably covered elsewhere. The description conveys the main battery data points but omits the role of the optional serial parameter and any safety or read-only context. For a simple status tool this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0% and the description does not mention the optional serial parameter at all. The description adds no meaning about which device is queried or whether serial must be supplied. The schema only provides a minimal title and type, leaving the agent without useful parameter guidance.

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 identifies a specific resource (battery) and the data points it exposes: charge level, state (charging/discharging), and temperature. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like network_status and storage_usage. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'read', but the tool name and noun-phrase description make the purpose clear.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the battery-specific resource, which is not sufficient for clear tool selection.

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