wake_vehicle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the 90-second timeout and the fact that the tool is automatically invoked before commands, both non-obvious traits. It does not detail side effects or failure modes, but for a wake operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a crucial caveat about automatic invocation and a timeout. Every word contributes value.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and an important behavioral constraint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 only parameter vin is fully described in the schema (including default behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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: 'Explicitly wakes the vehicle from sleep.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the note about being called automatically distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools that perform other actions.

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 phrase 'also called automatically before any command' implies that explicit use is usually unnecessary, providing context on when not to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or conditions under which one should call it manually, so it falls short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.