get_battery

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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds the concrete returned fields, which is useful but not extensive behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, listing exactly the three key output values with no redundant wording. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a parameterless read-only tool, this is complete: the agent knows exactly what values to expect and that no input is required. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no additional context is needed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description sensibly focuses on the tool's output rather than inventing parameter 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 enumerates the tool's output: battery percentage, plugged state, and remaining seconds. It does not use an explicit verb but the name 'get_battery' plus these data fields makes the purpose clear. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'monitor_battery_health'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monitor_battery_health' or 'get_power_profile'. The description simply states what is returned, leaving selection decisions entirely to the agent.

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