Battery Configuration Calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates and returns configuration details, which implies a read-only, deterministic operation. However, it does not disclose any assumptions (e.g., ideal batteries, rounding) or edge cases. Given the calculator nature, a 3 is baseline.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose and immediate output details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so (number of batteries, wiring config, instructions). It could mention handling of fractional numbers or rounding, but overall sufficient for a simple calculator.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, just implying arrangement (series/parallel). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Determine how to arrange batteries' and resource 'battery config'. It specifies the outputs: number of batteries, wiring configuration (e.g., 2S3P), and step-by-step instructions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_battery_bank and generate_wiring_diagram.

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 implies use when needing to achieve a target voltage and capacity with given battery specs. While not explicit, the context of sibling tools (charging time, inverter size, etc.) helps differentiate. A 4 is appropriate as it is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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