open_tonneau

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.