mcp-teslamate-fleet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop') but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., turns off HVAC, may affect battery usage), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place by clearly conveying the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a simple mutation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects, errors) that would be helpful for an agent, especially without annotations, making it incomplete for optimal use.

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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 ('Stop') and the resource ('climate preconditioning'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from its sibling 'tesla_climate_on' by indicating the opposite action. However, it doesn't specify what 'climate preconditioning' entails (e.g., heating/cooling the cabin), which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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 implies usage when climate preconditioning is active and needs to be stopped, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., vehicle must be online) or exclusions (e.g., not usable while driving), leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.

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