open_charge_port

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.