mcp-teslamate-fleet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (monthly snapshots of ideal range) but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, how far back data goes, whether it's read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence establishes the core purpose (battery degradation trend), and the second sentence clarifies the specific metric (ideal range at 100% charge) and temporal scope (monthly snapshots). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, has an output schema (which handles return value documentation), and performs a relatively simple data retrieval function, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, the lack of behavioral context (authentication needs, data recency, etc.) and usage guidelines relative to siblings prevents a higher score.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses correctly on what the tool provides rather than what it requires, meeting the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 what the tool does: shows battery degradation trend by displaying monthly snapshots of ideal range at 100% charge. It uses specific verbs ('shows') and identifies the resource (battery range data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'tesla_status' or 'tesla_state_history' that might also provide battery-related information.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to sibling tools like 'tesla_status' (which might show current battery state) or 'tesla_state_history' (which might track various vehicle states over time). The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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