open_rear_trunk

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.