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 describes what data is returned (driving activity with metrics) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or how it handles errors. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence lists key metrics, and the second explains the temporal scope and energy consumption. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address when to use this tool versus siblings and operational constraints.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'days' controls how many past days of driving activity are shown ('last N days'). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only defines the type and default), the description compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify format constraints or valid ranges.

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 tool's purpose: to show recent driving activity with specific metrics (distance, duration, efficiency, start/end locations) and energy consumption for the last N days. It uses specific verbs ('shows') and resources ('driving activity'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'tesla_longest_trips' or 'tesla_location_history'.

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 mentions 'last N days of driving activity' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'tesla_longest_trips' (which might show filtered trips) or 'tesla_location_history' (which might focus on locations rather than driving metrics).

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