get_battery_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the key conditional behavior (hardware without battery returns 'present': false) and the expected data (capacity percentage and charging status). It does not over-explain, but it is transparent about the core 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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then succinctly adds the hardware behavior and return details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless getter with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent the scope, the no-battery fallback, and what the returned values represent. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 parameter documentation is not needed. The description still clarifies that no arguments are required and defines what the response covers, which aligns with the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 and resource ('get battery status'), and further scopes it to WLAN Pi models with a battery. It clearly differentiates the tool's purpose from the many other getter tools by defining what hardware it applies to and what it returns.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for battery status on battery-capable WLAN Pi models)Skip, and it notes that on hardware without a battery it returns 'present': false. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the resource is so distinct that no alternative routing is necessary.

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