monitor_battery_health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by naming the specific health metrics returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, refresh behavior, or what 'health percent' precisely represents. The description does not contradict the 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 a single clear sentence with no filler, and the key subject ('detailed battery health information') is front-loaded with useful examples in parentheses. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential purpose and gives sample return fields even though no output schema exists. It is slightly incomplete because it does not distinguish itself from 'get_battery', but all necessary invocation details are present.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds value by indicating what information the tool provides, which is sufficient for a parameterless call.

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 states a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('detailed battery health information') and names concrete fields: cycle count, capacity, and health percent. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'get_battery', relying on the word 'detailed' to imply the distinction.

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 implies this tool is for obtaining battery health details, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling 'get_battery' or other monitoring tools. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing, so usage context is only implied rather than spelled out.

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