Analyze energy use / battery drain from an Energy Log trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it parses the trace, returns bucket classification, wakeup count, active-state ratio, and top-N samples. It mentions v1.15+ but does not specify side effects or error handling. Lacks explicit read-only statement, but the nature of trace analysis implies no destructive actions.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses brackets to highlight the tool source, and includes version info. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It lists returned items (classification, wakeup count, ratio, top-N) but lacks details on format or structure. For a tool with 3 parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context like 'top-N samples by energy cost' but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 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 parses the energy-impact schema, returns classification and aggregate data, and distinguishes itself from analyzeTimeProfile by specifying it reads the OS power-management subsystem directly. The verb 'Parse' and resource 'energy-impact schema' are specific.

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?

Explicitly mentions the use case 'why is my app draining battery?' and distinguishes from analyzeTimeProfile. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use or alternative tools among the many siblings, but the single distinction is clear.

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