vrm_get_dynamic_ess_settings

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it 'gets' settings, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or data scope (e.g., what exactly is returned), leaving behavioral aspects opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place, precisely stating the tool's action and target resource.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. But it lacks details on the response format or any special conditions, which could aid an agent. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a well-described parameter ('siteId'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a simple parameter. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Dynamic ESS configuration settings'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve other specific data (e.g., battery sumary, alarms). No ambiguity exists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or mention of prerequisites, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly among many similar getter tools.

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