vrm_get_widget_graph

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that graphs are retrieved, without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on invalid site IDs, or that it's a read operation. The name implies reading, but the description adds no safety context.

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, clear sentence that is easy to parse. It avoids redundancy but may be too terse; it does not waste words, but could include additional context (like data format) without harming conciseness.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about the return format, pagination, error handling, or how to interpret the 'graphs'. Without annotations, the agent has insufficient context to reliably use this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples of graph types but provides no additional meaning for parameters like siteId, attributeCodes, or instance beyond what the schema already says. The agent gains no new understanding of parameter usage.

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 the action 'Get' and the resource 'specific device performance graphs', with examples like battery voltage and inverter output. However, it does not differentiate this tool from many sibling tools such as vrm_get_data_attributes or vrm_get_historic_data, which may also retrieve graph-like data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many similar 'get' tools, but no criteria (e.g., 'use this for high-level graph data, use vrm_get_historic_data for raw time series') are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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