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 shows state transitions and is useful for analysis, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key use case without unnecessary elaboration.

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 covers return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and a use case, but lacks behavioral details and sibling differentiation. For a tool with no annotations, it should provide more context on how it operates.

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 input schema has one parameter ('days') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, with only one parameter and a default value provided in the schema, the agent can infer basic usage. The description doesn't add semantic value beyond the schema, but the simplicity of the parameter set justifies a baseline score of 4.

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: showing vehicle state transitions (online, asleep, offline) and indicates it's useful for vampire drain analysis. It specifies the resource (vehicle state transitions) and context (vampire drain analysis), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tesla_vampire_drain' or 'tesla_status' which might overlap in purpose.

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 minimal usage guidance by mentioning it's 'useful for vampire drain analysis,' which hints at a use case. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tesla_vampire_drain' or 'tesla_status,' nor does it provide any prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit when/when-not instructions.

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