Parking file

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description carries the rest. It discloses the shape of what comes back (sectors with bands, background pieces, image positions including saved places when moved, sensors by group, preview) and, importantly, the precondition that the parking page must already be open. It does not say what happens if the page isn't open (error vs empty).

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?

One dense but well-formed sentence: resource first, contents second, prerequisite last. Nothing is filler, though the 'Open the parking page first' precondition is operationally critical and would earn more weight front-loaded rather than trailing.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return payload, and it does so at a useful level of detail for a read-only layout fetch. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the page is not open, which the prerequisite only implies.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on the return payload, which is the right allocation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the parking page's layout file (config_mini.ops / config.ops) for the car shown, then enumerates the payload (sectors/bands, background pieces, car image positions, sensors by group, preview). This clearly separates it from list_cars, status, or the set_* mutation siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from get_scene_data, which could plausibly overlap.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Open the parking page first', which is genuinely useful context for avoiding an empty read. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_state, get_scene_data, or get_preview, so the alternative-selection decision is left to inference from the tool names.

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