estimate_battery_life

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the tool is a computation producing hours/days and that capture_id triggers automatic window-mean averaging, which is useful behavioral context. But it omits what happens when both sources are given or neither is, whether start_s/end_s bound the averaging window, and any error 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?

Two short, front-loaded paragraphs: the purpose first, the input-mode rule second. No filler text, and the default for capacities_mah is stated compactly. It is efficient, though the two language-register switch (Chinese body vs. English identifiers) slightly interrupts flow.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the two data sources, and one default, which is the essential shape. It still leaves the start_s/end_s semantics and the both/neither-source behavior unexplained, and gives only partial output detail (hours/days), so completeness is adequate but not full.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains three of five parameters: capture_id (auto window mean), mean_ua (direct value), and the default for capacities_mah. It never explains start_s or end_s, leaving the window boundaries undocumented, so it only partially closes the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: estimating battery life (hours/days) across several capacities from a mean current. This is unambiguous, and no sibling tool performs anything comparable, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from siblings, but none conflict.

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?

It states the two mutually exclusive input modes ('数据来源二选一: capture_id ... 或直接给 mean_ua'), which is real guidance on how to source the current value. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the capture/analyze tools or prerequisites for obtaining a capture_id. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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