Tessie MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but get_vehicle_state, get_vehicle_status, and get_full_status overlap in scope, which could confuse an agent. The many enable/disable pairs are otherwise unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_*, set_*, start_*, stop_*, enable_*, disable_*). Exceptions like 'boombox' and 'remote_start' are minor and do not disrupt the overall pattern.
Tool Count2/5
At 61 tools, the set is excessively large. Many enable/disable pairs (e.g., enable_sentry_mode/disable_sentry_mode) could be consolidated into single set_* commands with boolean parameters, reducing bloat without losing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is remarkably complete for a Tesla management server, covering state retrieval, climate, charging, security, historical drive/charge data, software updates, and comfort features. No major operational gaps are apparent.
Average 3.7/5 across 61 of 61 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns charging sessions', omitting details about pagination, time ranges, defaults, or the nature of returned data. This is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite rich schema descriptions, the tool description lacks context about the overall behavior, such as default time ranges, how filters interact, or what the response looks like. Since there is no output schema, this short description leaves much to be inferred, especially with 8 optional parameters and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns charging sessions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_drives by focusing on charging rather than driving, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of filtering conditions, default behavior, or when to choose get_charges over other get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns tire pressure' without stating whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires special permissions, what the return structure looks like, or that it supports time ranges and unit overrides. The simplicity of 'get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly disclose any behaviors beyond the basic result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it is arguably too minimal, omitting useful context about time range and units, but that is a completeness issue rather than conciseness. It earns a 4 for being efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the full context (e.g., that it can return historical data via from/to, uses default VIN, and supports unit override). It does not. The description only covers the basic output and leaves ambiguity about current vs. historical pressure. Without annotations, this is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for its four optional parameters, providing descriptions for 'to', 'vin', 'from', and 'pressure_format'. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. The description itself adds no parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returns tire pressure for all four tires. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools because no other tool in the group covers tire pressure. The phrase 'all four tires' adds specificity about the scope of the return value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate (e.g., current vs historical pressure) or how it differs from other getters. This falls under 'no guidance'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists return content. It does not disclose caching behavior, potential vehicle wake, rate limits, or whether the data might be stale. The parameter description for use_cache hints at this, but the tool description itself omits it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the included data areas. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what data is returned and the schema covers parameters, but it lacks guidance on sibling tool selection and does not mention the caching/wake behavior implied by use_cache. This is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already handles the semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the latest state of a specific vehicle and lists the main data categories (drive, charge, climate, config). It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_vehicle_status or get_full_status, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vehicle_status or get_full_status. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists possible return values, but does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it may wake the vehicle, or whether it returns cached or live data. For a tool interacting with vehicle state, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is almost sufficient. However, it lacks behavioral context such as whether the call has side effects (e.g., waking the vehicle) or response format details. Given the absence of annotations, this would benefit from a note clarifying it is a non-mutating status check.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the 'vin' parameter including its default behavior via environment variable, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema already handles it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a vehicle's sleep status with three specific possible values (awake, asleep, waiting_for_sleep). It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_vehicle_state', which could plausibly overlap in function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vehicle_state' or 'get_full_status'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The intended use case is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behaviors such as result ordering, pagination, default timezone handling, or VIN fallback to environment variables. With no annotations, these gaps leave the agent without important context for invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and immediately conveying the core function. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the schema detailing each parameter, the description lacks high-level context about filtering by date range or tags, result limits, and output structure. With 10 parameters and no output schema, a more comprehensive overview is necessary for correct tool selection and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but its mention of output fields (distance, energy, speed, route) provides some context beyond the schema, though it doesn't compensate for missing parameter insight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of drives with specific details (distance, energy, speed, route), using the verb 'Returns' and naming the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drive_path (which retrieves a single drive's path) and get_charges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or filters mentioned. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, there is no disclosure of side effects, prerequisites, or limitations. This matches the 'update_drive' example that scored 2 for lacking behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word adds value with no redundant filler or restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one optional parameter, the description is minimally viable. It lists the returned fields but omits units, error conditions, or vehicle wake state. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden, yet the simplicity of the tool keeps it at a 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the vin parameter fully documented including default behavior via TESSIE_DEFAULT_VIN. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema covers it, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource (battery) plus a detailed list of data fields (level, range, voltage, temperature, energy stats). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_battery_health or get_vehicle_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and does not mention preferred use cases, exclusions, or sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns data but does not disclose any potential limitations, such as data availability windows, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is purely read-only. The mention of 'over time' hints at historical data but lacks behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It lists example content (degradation, capacity, max range) but does not clarify the return format, time range semantics, or any exclusions. More detail would be needed to fully equip an agent, but the description is sufficient for a basic getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'over time' which loosely relates to the from/to timestamps but does not explain formats or defaults. The schema already documents each parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Returns battery health measurements for a vehicle over time' and lists specific data types (degradation, capacity, max range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery (likely current state) and get_vehicle_state, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_battery or get_vehicle_state. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts. No explicit usage direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It conveys that this is a mutation ('Sets the cost'), but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens if the charge session doesn't exist. This is similar to the 'update_drive' example which scored 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks any mention of return values, error handling, or whether the cost overwrites existing values. Given there is no output schema, the agent gets minimal context about what to expect after invocation, so a 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with all three parameters (vin, cost, charge_id) described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Sets' and the resource 'cost for a specific charging session', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_charge_limit' (sets percentage limit) and 'get_charges' (retrieves charging data). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about which users or scenarios this tool is appropriate for. The description is purely a one-liner without any decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavior ('auto-wakes if asleep') but does not disclose command-specific details such as required permissions, reversibility, failure modes, or effects on the vehicle beyond enabling the mode.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single phrase to convey both the action and a key behavioral note. No wasteful filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is too sparse to provide full context. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, how parameters interact, or what the agent should expect after invoking the command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like limit_mph or max_attempts; all useful semantics are already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Enables' with specific resource 'Speed Limit Mode', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as disable_speed_limit and other enable_* tools. Even without details, the exact function is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disable_speed_limit or other limit-setting commands. The description does not mention parameters or preconditions, leaving the selection decision solely to the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds the 'auto-wakes if asleep' caveat, which is a meaningful behavior beyond the core action. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, response behavior, or what happens if guest mode is already disabled, leaving notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and adds a relevant behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers all parameters and the description adds a useful wake-behavior detail, but with no annotations or output schema, the description still lacks usage context, async/command-completion semantics, and failure behavior. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Disables' and names the exact resource 'Guest Mode', making the purpose immediately clear. The 'auto-wakes if asleep' clause adds a distinguishing behavioral detail, and the resource name differentiates it from sibling tools like disable_valet_mode or enable_guest_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enable_guest_mode or disable_valet_mode. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'auto-wakes if asleep,' which is useful but minimal. It does not mention the PIN requirement, potential failures, reversibility, or the command's asynchronous nature, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a notable behavior without waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple command tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify whether all parameters are indeed optional (schema says required: 0), especially the PIN, which seems crucial for disabling a safety feature. The auto-wake behavior is mentioned but not elaborated in terms of impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; the schema already explains each parameter. Thus, no additional value is provided beyond the structured fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Disables Speed Limit Mode') with a specific verb and resource, and the 'auto-wakes if asleep' note adds context. It distinguishes well from the sibling tool enable_speed_limit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied (disabling speed limit mode) but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The 'auto-wakes if asleep' hint does provide some context but not enough to fully guide the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 reveals that the tool 'auto-wakes if asleep', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits other important aspects like authentication needs, failure conditions, or what happens if the vehicle is unresponsive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key behavioral aspect. It contains no filler or redundant content, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple command tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description sufficiently states the purpose and one behavior, but it lacks details about return values, prerequisites, or error handling. The sibling tools provide some context, but explicit usage guidance is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Enables' with the resource 'Guest Mode', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'disable_guest_mode'. The added detail 'auto-wakes if asleep' further clarifies the tool's behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'enable_valet_mode' or 'disable_guest_mode'. The description only states what it does, leaving the decision entirely to the agent without any contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does imply read-only behavior via 'Returns,' but it gives no details about potential limitations, such as the need for historical GPS data, the impact of 'simplify' on the result, or any rate restrictions. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool with no annotation context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words: 'Returns the GPS path for drives in a given timeframe.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, contains no fluff, and every word earns its place. It is an excellent example of concise, structured writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should ideally clarify what a 'GPS path' entails (e.g., array of lat/lng points, whether it includes timestamps). While the parameter schema handles the inputs, the description alone is somewhat thin for an agent to fully understand the return shape and edge cases. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters (to, vin, from, details, simplify). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema; it only mentions 'timeframe' which maps to from/to. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to repeat them, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the GPS path for drives in a given timeframe.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('GPS path'), and scope ('drives in a given timeframe'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drives (drive summaries) and get_location (current position).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need the GPS route for drives over a time period), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that get_location should be used for the current position or that get_drives returns summaries. This is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose permission requirements, output structure, or any filtering behavior. For a getter, this is minimal but not a contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core function without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter with no output schema or annotations. The description tells what is returned (firmware alerts) but lacks details on alert format, severity, or time range. It is minimally adequate but could benefit from a bit more context about what constitutes a firmware alert.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'vin' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond that, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('firmware alerts generated by the vehicle'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vehicle_status or get_battery, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when firmware alerts are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. No context about triggers or prerequisites is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses auto-waking but does not mention that this is a mutating physical action, potential failure modes (e.g., port already open or blocked), or any safety considerations. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the core action and the wake behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with a hyphens providing an additional detail. Every word earns its place, with the verb and action front-loaded for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the core action and an important behavior (auto-wake). However, it does not explain the asynchronous nature hinted at by wait_for_completion, nor does it mention potential side effects or error conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps in covering the full operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents each parameter clearly, including the wait_for_completion flag.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'opens' and resource 'charge port door', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like close_charge_port. The auto-wake detail further clarifies the action, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the need to open the port before charging or the availability of close_charge_port for the inverse operation. However, the auto-wake note implicitly advises that this call can be used directly without a separate wake step, offering some contextual usage guidance without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait ('auto-wakes if asleep'), but it omits other useful details such as failure modes, return values, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the vehicle must be parked).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the essential action and includes the auto-wake note. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is adequate but leaves gaps about behavior under failure or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the frunk is already open). It doesn't explain the retry/wait behavior implied by 'max_attempts' and 'wait_for_completion', though those are covered in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Opens the front trunk (frunk)'), making it immediately clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like 'open_rear_trunk'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'open_rear_trunk' or 'wake_vehicle'), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only addition is 'auto-wakes if asleep,' which is more behavioral than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one useful behavior ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which is not captured by the schema or annotations. However, it does not elaborate on other potential side effects, permissions, or failure modes, leaving significant gaps for a command tool with no annotations to rely on.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly one sentence, front-loading the main purpose and adding a single behavioral note. No redundancies or wasted words; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core purpose is clear and parameters are well-documented in the schema, the overall tool context is thin: no output schema, no annotation support, and the description does not explain the command's full behavior or prerequisites beyond the auto-wake note. For a simple toggle this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover all five parameters clearly (e.g., 'on' described as 'Enable or disable', 'fan_only' as 'Fan only mode (no A/C)'), so the description adds no additional parameter guidance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enables or disables') and the specific resource ('Cabin Overheat Protection'), and it is distinct from sibling commands like start_climate or set_temperatures. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusion conditions mentioned. The description only restates the function without helping the agent select it appropriately among the many sibling set_* commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait—'auto-wakes if asleep'—but omits other important behaviors such as side effects, required vehicle state, or error conditions. This adds some value but is sparse for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and appends a relevant behavioral note. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, or a note about the return format (no output schema exists). The auto-wake behavior adds some context, but the agent is left to infer when this command is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it does not elaborate on 'amps', 'max_attempts', or 'wait_for_completion'. It neither hurts nor helps parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Sets the charging amperage', which is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_charge_limit, start_charging, and stop_charging. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the vehicle being plugged in or actively charging. The only context is the tool name and sibling list, which imply usage but are not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether tags are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, any permission requirements, or what the response contains. As a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, action-first sentence that delivers the core purpose without any fluff or repetition. It front-loads the verb and object, and the parenthetical example adds value without bloating the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema are only minimally sufficient. It does not explain how to obtain drive IDs (though get_drives exists), what effects a tag has, or any failure modes. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves several important gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds example tag values but no deeper semantics or relationship between parameters. It does not mention the 'vin' parameter or its default behavior, leaving the schema to carry that information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets a tag') and the target resource ('on one or more drives'), with concrete examples of tag values. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools, which are primarily vehicle controls or getters, and there is no other drive-tagging tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (tagging drives) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the sibling context makes the purpose fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the auto-wake behavior but does not mention reversibility, error conditions, or permission requirements. This adds some value but is not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action and one key behavior, but lacks details like error handling or when to use it, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, relying entirely on the schema's descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Stops charging the vehicle') and adds a behavioral note ('auto-wakes if asleep') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_charging or set_charge_limit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what the tool does without addressing exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep', which informs the agent about vehicle state handling. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden for transparency, and it doesn't mention side effects, prerequisites, or what happens if defrost isn't active.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is highly concise and front-loaded with the action. The behavioral note about auto-waking adds useful context without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, the description covers the essential purpose and one behavioral nuance, but it lacks any usage guidance or context about expected outcomes. With no output schema, the description could be more complete about what happens after execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Stops') and resource ('max defrost mode'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'start_defrost' and 'stop_climate'. The purpose is immediately clear without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used after 'start_defrost' or that 'stop_climate' is a different command, so the agent gets no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses that the tool is read-only (via 'Returns'), but it does not mention any behavioral traits such as data freshness, network dependency, vehicle wake requirements, or error implications. For a simple getter this is minimal but still leaves the agent without essential context about side effects or assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Returns'), and contains zero filler. It efficiently communicates the output without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned: coordinates, street address, and saved location name. It could be slightly more informative about the format or conditions (e.g., whether the saved name can be empty), but it is largely complete for the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% (the 'vin' parameter is well-described). The description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify how the optional vin parameter affects the returned location, but the schema already does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the vehicle's coordinates, street address, and saved location name.' This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_vehicle_state, get_vehicle_status) by focusing specifically on location data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: you would call this when you need the vehicle's location details. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the return types but not articulated beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful context that the forecast is based on the vehicle's current location, which is a non-obvious behavioral detail. However, it does not mention any potential failure modes, permission requirements, or that it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the essential information without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what it returns and the key dependency (vehicle location). It could be slightly more specific about the nature of the forecast (e.g., current conditions vs. multi-day), but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'vin', including its default behavior via environment variable. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returns the weather forecast. It specifies the resource (weather) and the context (vehicle's current location), and it is distinct from all sibling tools, as no other tool provides weather data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context on when it should be invoked, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish between this and other 'get' tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep', which adds context beyond a simple honk. However, with no annotations, it does not mention other behaviors like mutability, potential side effects, or command latency, so the burden is only partially met.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Honks the vehicle's horn') and includes one extra behavioral fact. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the important auto-wake behavior. It does not explain response behavior or failure modes, but this is not essential given its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description correctly does not repeat them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Honks the vehicle's horn' — a specific verb and resource. It also adds the auto-wake behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like flash_lights or wake_vehicle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses only the 'auto-wakes if asleep' behavior. It does not mention side effects, whether the command returns before completion (despite a wait_for_completion parameter), or any prerequisites/edge cases. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description plus the fully-described schema is mostly complete. It covers the action and an important execution detail (auto-wake). It lacks a bit of behavioral context, but overall is sufficient for a straightforward command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Opens the tonneau cover (Cybertruck)'. It uses a specific verb ('Opens') and resource ('tonneau cover'), and the parenthetical specifies the vehicle model. This distinguishes it from siblings like close_tonneau and related trunk commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you want the tonneau open) and adds the useful note that it 'auto-wakes if asleep', which is a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the comparison to sibling tools implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful behavioral note 'auto-wakes if asleep,' but does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., battery impact in Camp mode) or the retry behavior tied to max_attempts. It provides some context, but not a complete picture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, specifies all option values, and adds a key behavioral trait, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with fully documented schema parameters, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the critical auto-wake behavior and all mode values. It does not explain wait_for_completion semantics or potential side effects, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity and the schema's thoroughness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (vin, mode, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) already have descriptions. The tool description merely repeats the mode values already present in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Sets' with the clear resource 'Climate Keeper mode' and enumerates the mode values (0=Off, 1=Keep, 2=Dog, 3=Camp), making it easy to distinguish from sibling climate tools like start_climate or set_temperatures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool does, without explaining when to choose this over start_climate, stop_climate, or other climate setters. The usage is implied but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep'. However, it fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., which doors unlock), security implications, or failure behavior. This is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive for a physical-action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a succinct parenthetical note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and the auto-wake behavior. However, it lacks any mention of expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation response) or whether the command affects all doors, making it slightly less complete than ideal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning to 'vin', 'max_attempts', or 'wait_for_completion', so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb 'unlocks' and the resource 'vehicle doors', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lock' and 'wake_vehicle' by specifying the exact action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'lock' or 'wake_vehicle' as alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions. The auto-wake note implies a use case but does not clarify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the auto-wake behavior ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and omits details like permission requirements, reversibility, or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action verb and includes an important behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action tool with no output schema and all parameters documented, the description provides the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail. It does not need extensive elaboration, though it could mention edge cases or errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Vents the sunroof'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'close_sunroof' and 'vent_windows' by indicating the exact action and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'close_sunroof' or 'vent_windows'. There are no prerequisites, context cues, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add one behavioral trait (auto-wakes if asleep). However, it does not disclose potential failure conditions, reversibility, or what state the vehicle must be in for the command to succeed, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and adds valuable behavioral context without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and one behavioral note, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., already disabled) or what the response format is, making it minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (disable) applied to a specific resource (Valet Mode), distinguishing it from sibling mode-related tools like enable_valet_mode or disable_guest_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is strongly implied by the verb-noun structure and the auto-wake note, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep', which provides useful context. However, with no annotations, it does not cover other important aspects such as idempotency, prerequisites, or side effects, so transparency is partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and the auto-wake behavior without waste. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the main action and a key behavior. However, it does not explain what valet mode affects, nor does it mention expected outcomes or error cases, making it minimally complete but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional detail about parameters, keeping this at the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Enables Valet Mode') and clearly identifies the action. It also adds a behavioral detail ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like disable_valet_mode or enable_guest_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage from the name and context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., guest mode or sentry mode). There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, so it falls short of clear usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only says 'returns' data, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential limitations, error conditions, or data availability caveats (e.g., what happens if the vehicle has never been charged). With no annotation support, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning every word. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks detail about the nature and format of the returned 'energy consumption data'. It mentions the time scope ('since last charged') but does not hint at units, granularity, or possible absence of data. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool without an output schema that could clarify expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter, vin, has a description), so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but that is acceptable since the schema is self-sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('energy consumption data since the vehicle was last charged'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_battery (battery state) and get_charges (charging session history), making the purpose immediately apparent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need energy consumption since the last charge. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and the sibling list provides obvious alternatives for different data needs. This is clear context without explicit exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep,' which is valuable. However, it does not explain side effects, failure modes, or the meaning of wait_for_completion/max_attempts. This is only partial coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and adds a brief behavioral note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the essential purpose and one behavior, but lacks context around the optional parameters and return behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent would need more details about what 'completion' means and when to set wait_for_completion or max_attempts. The tool is simple, so 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Locks the vehicle doors.' It unambiguously distinguishes from the sibling 'unlock' tool. The parenthetical '(auto-wakes if asleep)' adds useful context without confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—lock the vehicle doors when you want to secure the vehicle—but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention that 'unlock' is the reversal, nor any prerequisites or situations where locking would be inappropriate. For a simple command, the implied usage is clear but underdeveloped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the auto-wake behavior, which is a valuable trait not evident from the schema. However, it doesn't specify whether the command turns on the climate system, requires the car to be awake, or any failure/return behavior, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter with four parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not clarify whether climate control must be active or how this relates to start_climate, though the auto-wake note helps. The schema covers parameter details, but the description leaves some operational context uncertain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's temperature range (15-28°C) duplicates what's already in the schema's min/max, and it adds no additional parameter semantics for vin, max_attempts, or wait_for_completion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Sets the cabin temperature') with an explicit temperature range (15-28°C), clearly distinguishing it from sibling climate tools like start_climate or set_seat_heat. The auto-wake note adds behavioral context but doesn't obscure the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting the cabin target temperature but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The 'auto-wakes if asleep' note gives a usage condition (works when the vehicle is asleep), but it doesn't compare against related climate controls like start_climate or stop_climate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one important behavior: 'auto-wakes if asleep'. However, it omits other relevant details like prerequisites (e.g., plugged in), potential side effects, or failure modes, making it a partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of only eight words, front-loaded with the action and including a parenthetical clarifier. Every word is useful, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, with optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action and the auto-wake behavior, but lacks deeper context about charging requirements or returned information. Given the lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the schema already handles parameter semantics, meriting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's primary action ('Starts charging the vehicle') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like stop_charging or set_charge_limit. The additional note 'auto-wakes if asleep' further clarifies its behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_charge_limit or set_charging_amps. No exclusionary or alternative tool guidance is provided, so it relies on the user/agent to infer from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one behavioral trait: auto-wakes if asleep. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as side effects on climate settings, whether the command is asynchronous (though wait_for_completion hints at it), or error/return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. The key action is front-loaded, and the auto-wake note is a useful addition that earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command, the description covers the core purpose and one behavior, but lacks detail on return values or completion semantics, especially given there is no output schema and no annotations. The sibling context suggests this is a straightforward control command, so minimalism is somewhat acceptable, but a bit more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Starts') and resource ('max defrost mode'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like start_climate and stop_defrost. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (defrosting) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like start_climate, nor any exclusions. The 'auto-wakes if asleep' note implies you may not need to call wake_vehicle first, but this is not framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool will 'auto-wake if asleep', which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the command is blocking, timeout behavior, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function and includes a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters fully, but there is no output schema and the description omits return-value details or error handling. It is minimally adequate for a command tool but lacks some contextual richness like prerequisites or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), so the description need not add further details. The schema already documents semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Triggers') and resource ('HomeLink garage door opener'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, as none other relates to garage doors or HomeLink.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the unique function, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., HomeLink being configured) or situations where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the valuable detail that it 'auto-wakes if asleep', which informs the agent about a side effect. However, it does not mention potential impacts like the need for authentication, whether the command is asynchronous, or any risks of ventilating windows. It gives some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and an important behavioral trait in just eight words. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the core action and auto-wake behavior, which is the most critical context. However, it does not clarify what the tool returns or when it might fail, and it lacks any mention of the optional parameters. It is not severely incomplete, but it could do more to set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters themselves—it does not explain how 'max_attempts' or 'wait_for_completion' affect the behavior. Since the schema already documents them, this is sufficient, but no additional value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Vents' with a clear resource 'all windows' and degree 'slightly open', making the action unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like close_windows and vent_sunroof, as the name and description clearly target window venting. The auto-wake note adds a distinct behavior that separates it from other window commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied through the action word 'Vents' — an agent can infer it should be used when venting windows is desired. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like vent_sunroof, nor any exclusion criteria. It lacks the explicit 'use X instead' pattern that would merit a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful trait 'auto-wakes if asleep', which tells the agent the tool may wake the vehicle. However, it does not mention potential irreversibility, permission requirements, or error scenarios, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and appends a valuable behavioral note. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple cancellation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential action and a key behavior. It does not mention edge cases or reference the scheduling tool, but given the tool's low complexity and rich schema, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) are fully described in the schema, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning to them, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancels') and the specific resource ('a scheduled software update'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool schedule_software_update which performs the opposite action. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that leaves no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool's purpose—cancel a scheduled update—but the description does not explicitly say when to use it or mention alternatives. It does not address conditions like whether an update must be scheduled or what happens if none exists, so guidance is limited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral detail 'auto-wakes if asleep', which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, permissions, or failure modes, making it minimally adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavior and an important auto-wake side effect. It is not overly long but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could optionally mention return status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Closes the charge port door' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool open_charge_port. The purpose is unambiguous and does not merely restate the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the action 'Closes' and the resource 'charge port door', but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so it falls short of a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the auto-wake behavior ('auto-wakes if asleep') which is beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as retry semantics (max_attempts) or completion behavior (wait_for_completion), which are present in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Perfect size.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key auto-wake behavior. It could mention the retry/wait behaviors but they are documented in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) is already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Closes the sunroof' with a clear verb and resource, and the em dash adds the auto-wake behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like vent_sunroof and close_windows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided; the usage is implied from the action. Siblings like vent_sunroof exist, but there is no note on when to choose close_sunroof over vent_sunroof.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep'. However, it does not mention other behaviors like whether all windows (including rear) are affected, potential failure modes, or reversibility. For a simple command tool, this is adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then the key behavioral note. This is an ideal length for a simple command tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It states the action and a relevant behavior (auto-wake). It could clarify that the sunroof is excluded (sibling close_sunroof exists), but that is inferable from the sibling list. Overall, sufficient for straightforward use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have meanings in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Closes all windows'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vent_windows' (opens windows) and 'close_sunroof' (closes a different part). The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when windows need to be closed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any preconditions. The auto-wake note provides some context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds one useful behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep'. However, it does not describe any other side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior, which is a gap for a mutating command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core action and a key behavior. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command with well-documented parameters, the description is largely adequate. It clearly states the action and mentions the auto-wake behavior. However, without an output schema or annotation, it could benefit from clarifying what happens on success or failure, making it slightly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool disables Sentry Mode with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'enable_sentry_mode' by explicitly using 'Disables' instead of 'Enables'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you want to turn off Sentry Mode, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'wake_vehicle' or 'enable_sentry_mode'. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose the important auto-wake side effect, but omits other details like authentication requirements, error behavior, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the core action and a key behavioral detail in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and a crucial behavioral nuance (auto-wake). The lack of an output schema is not a major issue for a command that returns a simple acknowledgment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since the schema already covers them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Enables Sentry Mode.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like disable_sentry_mode and other enable_* commands. The additional note about auto-waking adds context without confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as wake_vehicle, but the 'auto-wakes if asleep' phrase implies that you don't need to wake the vehicle separately. This is minimal implied usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Returns'), but it does not add context about response format, pagination, default time ranges, or any side effects. The definition of idle periods is helpful, but deeper behavioral traits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the parenthetical definition adds value without extra verbosity. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-retrieval tool with no required parameters and a clear schema, the description covers the essential semantics of what constitutes an idle period. It does not detail the return shape, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), lowering the burden on the tool description. The description adds a helpful definition of 'idle periods' that clarifies the meaning of the returned data, but it does not provide parameter-level context beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('idle periods') with a clear parenthetical definition ('vehicle parked, not driving or charging'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drives and get_charges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to retrieve idle periods, complementing drives and charges), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it does not mention that get_drives or get_charges should be used for driving or charging data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two important behaviors: the installation delay and the auto-wake side effect. However, it does not mention other relevant traits such as whether the update can be canceled after scheduling, potential impact on vehicle availability, or error conditions. This is partial but not comprehensive disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence of 13 words that is front-loaded with the core action and key qualifiers. No redundant or filler wording. Every phrase earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the core purpose and the most crucial side effect (auto-wake). It does not describe return values or prerequisites, but the schema covers parameter details, and the command is relatively simple. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters (vin, offset_sec, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) already have descriptions. The tool description adds only the 'delay (in seconds)' phrase, which directly reinforces offset_sec but does not add significant new meaning for other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Schedules') and resource ('software update'), clearly indicating the action. It adds a key qualifier ('after a delay (in seconds)') and a distinctive side effect ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_software_update. This is a textbook example of purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage (when you want to schedule a delayed software update) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like cancel_software_update. It does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes 'auto-wakes if asleep' and implies mutation, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or other side effects. This is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core action and a valuable behavioral note efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple toggle with all parameters documented in the schema. The description provides the essential action and the auto-wake behavior, sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. However, no output schema or return value details are given, and prerequisites or other side effects are not explained, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Enables or disables') and the resource ('Bioweapon Defense Mode'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools. The additional note about auto-waking further defines the tool's behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and description make the use case obvious. The auto-wake note implies it works on sleeping vehicles, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one useful behavioral trait ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which is valuable given no annotations are present. However, it does not mention other potentially relevant behaviors such as persistence of the setting, authentication requirements, or error states, leaving some gaps for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a relevant behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a key behavior (auto-wake), and the schema fully documents all parameters. It lacks some deeper context like return value semantics or error handling, but these are not critical for a basic setter command given the rich schema and known sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for percent, vin, max_attempts, and wait_for_completion. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Sets the charge limit percentage'), which clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_charging_amps (which sets current, not limit). It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (set the charge limit whenever you need to change the target charging percentage), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like set_charging_amps, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The auto-wake note is a behavioral hint rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool mutates state ('Turns on') and includes a notable side-effect ('auto-wakes if asleep'). However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as whether the command is idempotent, how retries or wait_for_completion affect execution, or any error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers both the primary purpose and a key behavioral condition. There is no fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple state-changing command with a fully described parameter schema, the description covers the essential purpose and an important behavioral nuance (auto-wake). It does not explain return values, but no output schema is present and the action is straightforward, so the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description does not mention them. The description adds no extra meaning about vin, max_attempts, or wait_for_completion that would elevate the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Turns on') and names the exact resource ('steering wheel heater'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool stop_steering_wheel_heater and other climate/seat controls. The added 'auto-wakes if asleep' provides useful scope beyond a generic label.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when the steering wheel heater should be turned on) but gives no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. The 'auto-wakes if asleep' note offers context about the car's state, but it does not say when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like set_seat_heat or start_climate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the auto-wake behavior, which is a useful non-obvious trait, but it does not mention any potential side effects, error conditions, or the nature of the return value (e.g., whether it returns a command status).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the primary function, followed by a brief behavioral note. Every phrase earns its place with no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with a clear action, 3 documented parameters, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. The auto-wake note is a valuable addition, and the absence of return-value details is acceptable given the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), leaving the schema to fully document them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Turns off the steering wheel heater' — a specific verb and resource. It also naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'start_steering_wheel_heater' by indicating the opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this tool to turn off the steering wheel heater. The phrase 'auto-wakes if asleep' hints that no separate wake step is needed, providing some context, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or contrast with alternatives like 'set_temperatures'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-wake behavior and time limit, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens on failure. This is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain return values or async behavior (though wait_for_completion hints at it). It covers the essential purpose but misses some behavioral context that would be helpful for a remote start command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Enables' with a clear resource 'keyless driving', distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_climate or start_charging. It clearly indicates the primary function of the tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear contextual constraint ('Driving must begin within 2 minutes') which tells the agent when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior—'auto-wakes if asleep'—which is useful, but it omits other relevant behavioral details such as whether the command is async, requires authentication, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the most important parameter semantics. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential info (level scale, auto-wake) but does not explain what happens after setting (e.g., how long heat persists, whether any seats have restrictions). Given the schema covers parameter details, this is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explicitly mapping the 'level' values (0=off, 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Heat level 0-3'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Sets'), the resource ('heating level for a specific seat'), and provides the scale (0=off, 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_seat_cool and other climate controls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage for heating a seat, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_seat_cool. No exclusions or conditional context are provided, so the usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral traits (firmware requirement, auto-wake), but does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, or whether the action is reversible. This is moderate disclosure for a simple command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with a dash providing a secondary clause. Every word earns its place, and the key action is immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no required params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, a hardware/firmware prerequisite, and a key behavior (auto-wake). It does not elaborate on optional parameters' runtime behavior, but those are fully documented in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what is already in the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Plays a fart sound') and the resource ('external speaker'), which is a specific and distinctive purpose. The sibling tools list shows no similar sound-playing tool, so it is well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear prerequisite (firmware 2022.40.25+) and a behavioral note (auto-wakes if asleep), giving context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct alternatives exist among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the auto-wake feature, which is useful context, but does not mention other behaviors such as failure handling, reversibility, or authentication prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and includes a useful parenthetical about auto-waking. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the command, the schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It captures the core action and the auto-wake behavior, though it could mention expected outcomes or edge cases. Still, it is sufficient for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), each with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool closes the tonneau cover on a Cybertruck, using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_tonneau, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to close the tonneau cover) and does not exclude any scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like open_tonneau, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses a useful behavioral trait: auto-waking the vehicle if asleep. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as whether the command is asynchronous, potential failure modes, or the effect of the wait_for_completion parameter. This is adequate but not rich for a command tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the auto-wake nuance with a dash. Every word contributes value, achieving excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with no output schema and all parameters documented, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the primary action and an important behavioral aspect (auto-wake). It could mention async behavior or retries, but the parameter names hint at these, making the description sufficient for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) are fully described in the input schema, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Flashes the vehicle's lights.' This is a specific verb and resource. The added note about auto-waking distinguishes it from sibling tools like honk (which produces sound) and wake_vehicle (which only wakes the vehicle), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: to flash the vehicle's lights. The phrase 'auto-wakes if asleep' provides context that it can be used even when the vehicle is asleep, eliminating the need to call wake_vehicle first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or mention situations where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-only operation by using 'Returns', but does not detail any potential limitations, performance considerations, or data structure. It adds some context by specifying the combined nature of the snapshot.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and outcome. It avoids unnecessary words and effectively front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status collection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what is returned and when to use it, though it could have mentioned that the result is a composite of several data sources.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the vin parameter with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, but the schema covers it adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as a combined snapshot of battery, location, and full vehicle state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual components, making 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use this tool: 'ideal for a quick overall check'. This gives clear usage guidance, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately states a read operation ('latest state') with no side effects, but doesn't disclose potential nuances like vehicle wake state or response caching. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned. It doesn't detail the return shape, but that's not critical for a list operation and is partially covered by the sibling tool context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the 'only_active' parameter has a clear description). The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies as the schema handles it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clear resource ('latest state of all vehicles on the account'). It distinguishes from sibling per-vehicle getters like get_vehicle_state by explicitly scoping to 'all vehicles on the account'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is an account-wide list operation, implying it should be used when you need multiple vehicles. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous and separate from single-vehicle tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral information. It discloses the auto-wake behavior ('auto-wakes if asleep'), which is valuable, but does not mention permissions, failure modes, or response format. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes beneficial level semantics and the auto-wake note. Every part contributes information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose, level range, and a notable behavioral trait. With 100% parameter description coverage and no output schema, it is sufficiently complete for a command tool, though it could mention what happens on failure or whether it returns a status. The auto-wake note adds useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by defining the level values (0=off, 1=low, 2=medium, 3=high), which is not fully explained in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's 'Cooling level 0-3'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: setting the cooling level for a specific seat, with explicit level mappings (0-3). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_seat_heat and specifics the resource (seat) and action (set cooling level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to set seat cooling levels) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. It implies usage rather than giving explicit guidance about when not to use it or comparing with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses a useful behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep'. It also notes that it begins battery preconditioning. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or response behavior, which are gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key behavior. Every word adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary purpose and a critical behavioral nuance (auto-wake). The only missing context is what the tool returns or any preconditions beyond wake state, but these are not essential for basic selection and invocation given the schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: all three parameters already have descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Starts') and identifies the resource ('climate system') plus a key nuance ('begins preconditioning the battery'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop_climate' and 'set_temperatures', and the auto-wake behavior adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context about what the tool does, implying when it should be used (when the user wants to start climate control). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'stop_climate' for turning off or 'set_temperatures' for adjusting target temps, so it 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: toggling (close if already open), the power requirement, and auto-wake capability. It does not cover potential error states or authorization, but the provided details are meaningful and non-obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose and key caveats without waste. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command tool with no output schema and well-described parameters, the description covers the essential behavior, prerequisites, and wake behavior. It could mention failure modes or response expectations, but the current completeness is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics; it relies on the schema's descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Opens the rear trunk') and adds a specific toggle behavior ('or closes it if already open'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like open_front_trunk by explicitly targeting the rear trunk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (to open/close the rear trunk) and notes a prerequisite ('powered trunk required'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions a non-obvious behavior: the tool auto-wakes the vehicle if it is asleep. This offers valuable transparency beyond the schema, though it does not discuss potential side effects or idempotency. Still, it meaningfully communicates a notable behavioral trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and an important behavioral constraint (auto-wake). It does not explain return values or error handling, but for a straightforward stop command, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially when paired with the detailed schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, relying entirely on the schema for the semantics of vin, max_attempts, and wait_for_completion. This is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Stops') and resource ('climate system'), making it distinct from sibling tools like start_climate and stop_defrost. The added clause 'auto-wakes if asleep' further clarifies the scope of action, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when stopping the climate system is desired), and implicitly distinguishes it from start_climate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the 90-second timeout and the fact that the tool is automatically invoked before commands, both non-obvious traits. It does not detail side effects or failure modes, but for a wake operation, this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant information. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a crucial caveat about automatic invocation and a timeout. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and an important behavioral constraint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter vin is fully described in the schema (including default behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which aligns with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Explicitly wakes the vehicle from sleep.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the note about being called automatically distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools that perform other actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'also called automatically before any command' implies that explicit use is usually unnecessary, providing context on when not to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or conditions under which one should call it manually, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tessie-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/akrowczyk/tessie-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/akrowczyk/tessie-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tessie-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/akrowczyk/tessie-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/akrowczyk/tessie-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/akrowczyk/tessie-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server