Battery status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one key behavior: an empty result means no battery is installed. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the formatted output looks like. This is a minimal but useful behavioral note, given the tool's simplicity.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the edge-case caveat is presented immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema) and the description covers its purpose and a notable edge case. However, it does not explain the format of the returned battery status or any potential prerequisites (e.g., whether a battery must be present). For a status tool among many similar siblings, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description does not need to compensate for parameter coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any misleading parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('Omarchy's formatted battery status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like wifi_status and bluetooth_status by explicitly targeting battery. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. For a simple status query, usage is implied but not stated explicitly, leaving the agent to infer when this is appropriate.

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