get_circuit_breakdown

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it pages through the AiSEG2's circuit list, returns ranks, names, watts, total watts, and page count, and warns that names may wrap. This is useful context not present in structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by paging behavior and a name caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, how it pages, what it returns, and a name accuracy caveat. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead it clarifies what the output contains (rank, name, watts, total, pages), providing semantic value beyond the empty schema.

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 tool 'Get[s] the instantaneous power draw of every measured circuit, ranked highest first,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from the sibling list_circuits by noting that names here are display-derived and list_circuits is authoritative.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for measuring instantaneous power per circuit and explicitly says list_circuits() is the authoritative name source, guiding when to use the alternative. It does not explicitly enumerate all exclusions but gives practical guidance.

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