kia_vehicle_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: cached data semantics, the climate object's conditional presence via airTempRange/seatHeatCoolOption, the EV-specific ign3 field, syncDate advancing on every read, and unverified seat heat/vent encoding. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence conveys a critical caveat necessary for correct interpretation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then systematically addresses freshness, climate presence, EV ignition, seat data encoding, and the meaning of absent seat blocks. Slightly long but disciplined.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully compensates by explaining the most important return-value pitfalls: cached vs fresh, climate object presence, ign3 vs engine, syncDate semantics, raw seat heat/vent codes being unverified, and the meaning of absent seat data. This is comprehensive for a complex telematics tool.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining include_raw returns the untrimmed status block (battery/EV detail, doors, tyres) and by detailing the internal request behavior that controls whether the nested climate object appears. The vehicle_key parameter is already well described in the 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 clearly states it reads the vehicle's cached status (cmm/gvi) and lists the specific data areas: door lock, ignition, and remote-climate block. It differentiates itself from the sibling kia_refresh_status by positioning itself as the fast, cached alternative.

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 advises using kia_refresh_status first when freshness matters, giving a concrete alternative. It also clarifies when to use include_raw and warns against interpreting seat-heat codes, providing clear usage boundaries.

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