trigger_detect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that extended probing is much slower and names the underlying `entry list+` behavior, but it omits whether detection is read-only, what side effects it may have on the charger, and how timeout_s affects execution.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the extended-mode tradeoff immediately after. There is no wasted verbiage.

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?

For a two-parameter detection tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and the extended-mode cost. It is still missing timeout semantics, expected return shape, and any safety or side-effect context, so it is only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains extended meaningfully by linking it to VOOC/MTK PE probing and increased latency, but it does not explain timeout_s or its units/effect, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: detect fast-charge protocols supported by the attached charger. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby trigger tools such as trigger_fast_charge or trigger_pd_source_caps.

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 gives conditional guidance for extended=True, noting that it probes VOOC/MTK PE and takes much longer. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of sibling tools or when not to use it.

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