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 mentions the tool provides a 'summary' but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, affects the vehicle state, or details the output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely accesses sensitive or real-time data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. It is appropriately sized with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, the description lacks context on usage and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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: 'months: Number of months to show (default: 6)'. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose and default value, though it could note constraints like 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: 'Monthly driving summary — miles, kWh, cost, efficiency.' It specifies the verb ('summary') and resource ('driving'), and the metrics provided. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'tesla_drives' or 'tesla_charging_history', which might overlap in scope, so it falls short of a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to Tesla data (e.g., 'tesla_drives', 'tesla_charging_history'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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