mcp-teslamate-fleet

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm requirement (a safety behavior) but doesn't mention other behavioral traits like whether this requires vehicle wake-up, network connectivity, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the vehicle is in motion.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 this is a vehicle control tool with no annotations, 2 parameters, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks context about prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions that would be helpful for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. It explains that 'which' accepts 'rear' for trunk and 'front' for frunk, and that 'confirm' must be True to execute, providing crucial semantic context not in the schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Open or close') and resources ('trunk or frunk'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on trunk/frunk operations rather than charging, climate, or other vehicle functions.

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 implied usage through the 'Requires confirm=True' statement, which suggests a safety confirmation is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tesla_lock/unlock or other vehicle control tools.

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