Energy flow preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: '(nothing is written)', telling the agent this is a non-mutating preview. It does not say whether the preview replaces prior preview state, whether a vehicle must be selected first, or what happens on omission of the zero-required parameters.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the 'nothing is written' clarification is placed early. However, the fragment structure with a trailing colon list is not front-loaded with an action verb, so the reader must reconstruct the operation from the field list.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable field-level map plus the key non-write disclosure. It still omits enum semantics, units, and the relationship to real energy data (get_energy_data), which an agent would need to fill in this payload confidently.

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 only 13% (just batteryFlow), so the description must compensate, and it does group the fields meaningfully: kind as BEV/PHEV, 'parts on or off' for the motor/engine/battery booleans, 'battery flow and charge' for batteryFlow and charge, 'movement' for moving. It adds no meaning for the situation enum values (electric, engine, boost, recuperation, sailing) or the 0-100 units of charge, leaving real gaps across 8 parameters.

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 is a noun-phrase fragment that enumerates the payload ('kind, situation, parts on or off, battery flow and charge, movement') but never states the verb. It does say the data is what's shown on the 'energy flow page' and that nothing is written, so an agent can infer this populates an energy-flow preview, but the name's 'set_' action is never confirmed and the sibling tools (set_parking_preview, move_energy) are not differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to call this versus get_energy_data, move_energy, or set_parking_preview. The one implicit cue is 'nothing is written', which hints it is for previewing rather than reading real vehicle data, but no conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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