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. It describes what data is returned (battery, range, location, climate, odometer) and mentions it's the 'latest position snapshot,' which implies real-time or recent data. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, potential costs, or what happens if the vehicle is offline. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured. The first sentence lists the key data points returned, and the second sentence clarifies the data source and that it's the latest snapshot. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 that there's an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It provides a good high-level overview of what data to expect. However, for a tool with no annotations and many similar sibling tools, it could benefit from more context about when this specific tool should be used versus alternatives.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it focuses on what the tool returns instead.

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: to return current vehicle state information including battery, range, location, climate, and odometer. It specifies the data source (TeslaMate) and indicates this is the 'latest position snapshot and vehicle info.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tesla_live' or 'tesla_state_history' which might provide similar or overlapping 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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., tesla_live, tesla_state_history, tesla_battery_health), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other options that might provide similar or more specific data.

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