get_power_flow

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by detailing what data is returned and under what conditions (e.g., 'if a battery is connected'). It goes beyond the annotations by specifying the return contents, although it does not discuss error cases or access requirements.

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 long, front-loads the read-only and time-sensitive nature, and packs useful detail into a compact list of return categories. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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's moderate complexity, zero parameters, and existing output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it states the resource, the temporal scope, the return categories, and conditional elements. No critical invocation details are missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than input semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('AiSEG2's instantaneous whole-home power flow'), and clearly scopes it to 'right now.' It enumerates distinct return values (generation/consumption, buy/sell status, battery, per-source breakdown, top circuits) that distinguish it from the historical/circuit-focused sibling tools.

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 clearly conveys real-time, current-state usage through words like 'instantaneous' and 'right now,' which implies use for immediate monitoring rather than historical analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_history or get_circuit_breakdown, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for a live snapshot.

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