mcp-teslamate-fleet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Stop charging' implies a control action but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, affects vehicle state, has side effects, or provides confirmation. It lacks details about what happens to the charging session, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise at two words, front-loading the essential action with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists) but mutation nature, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will handle return values, but the description lacks context about behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. For a control tool with no annotations, it should provide more operational guidance to be fully 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and 'Stop charging' appropriately implies no required inputs for this basic command. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter explanation is needed.

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 'Stop charging' clearly states the action (stop) and target (charging), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tesla_charge_start' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what resource is being stopped (e.g., vehicle charging session), leaving some ambiguity.

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 (e.g., requires an active charging session), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'tesla_charge_start' or 'tesla_set_charge_limit'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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