open_front_trunk

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.