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. It states the tool toggles sentry mode but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires vehicle wake-up, authentication needs, network latency, rate limits, side effects (e.g., battery drain), or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place 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's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, and error conditions, which are important for a vehicle control tool with no annotations.

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 semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only a boolean 'on' parameter with default true), but the description explains that 'on: True to enable, False to disable sentry mode,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and effect. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 ('toggle sentry mode on or off') and the resource ('sentry mode'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on sentry mode rather than other vehicle functions like climate control or charging. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar toggle tools (like climate on/off).

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., vehicle must be parked, sentry mode availability), nor does it differentiate from other security-related tools (like lock/unlock). The agent must infer usage 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.