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 describes a read-only historical query ('history'), implying no destructive actions, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Firmware version history') and adds clarifying details ('all recorded software versions and install dates'). There's zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (simple read-only query with 0 params), the description covers the basic purpose adequately. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on authentication, data scope, or differentiation, leaving room for improvement.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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: retrieving firmware version history with software versions and install dates. It uses specific verbs ('Firmware version history') and identifies the resource, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tesla_state_history' or 'tesla_status' which might also provide software-related data.

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, context (e.g., vehicle connectivity), or compare it to siblings like 'tesla_status' that might include current software info. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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