evolute_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that coordinates are hidden unless include_pii is true, which is important privacy behavior not apparent from the schema. It does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, or read-only guarantees, but 'telemetry' implies a read operation and the PII note adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise: two sentences, no filler, and the core resource and telemetry domains are front-loaded. The PII behavior is placed second, which is appropriate. It could have used an active verb for slightly better readability, but it is otherwise well structured.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be repeated. The description covers the main domain, default/given vehicle behavior, and the key PII nuance. It still lacks explicit usage boundaries and fuller car_id semantics, so it is adequate but not complete for an agent that has no other context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains include_pii by tying it to coordinate visibility, and 'default (or given) vehicle' indirectly hints at car_id. However, car_id is never named nor its selection semantics fully described, leaving a required-for-advanced-use parameter underspecified.

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 states the resource (vehicle telemetry) and enumerates the covered domains: charge, climate, doors, online. It also clarifies the default-vs-given vehicle behavior and the PII gating, which helps distinguish this from simpler siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' and does not explicitly contrast with evolute_charge, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the tool ('default or given vehicle') but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose evolute_status over siblings like evolute_charge or evolute_vehicles. There are no when-to-use rules, exclusions, or alternative routing. An agent must infer the intended scope from the listed telemetry categories.

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