close_charge_port

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.