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 action ('Set') and a range ('50-100'), but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this requires authentication, if it's a destructive operation that changes vehicle settings, potential rate limits, or what the output might indicate (e.g., success/failure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by parameter details. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and parameter usage, with no redundant information.

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 (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral details like authentication needs or error handling, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: it explains the parameter 'percent' as 'Charge limit as percentage', specifies the valid range ('50-100'), and provides a usage recommendation ('80% is recommended for daily use'). This goes beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting the single parameter.

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 ('Set charge limit percentage') and the resource ('charge limit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tesla_charge_start' or 'tesla_charge_stop' that also relate to charging operations, though the specific function is distinct.

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, such as whether it should be used for daily charging versus long trips, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'tesla_charging_by_location'. It includes a recommendation ('80% is recommended for daily use') but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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