Tesla Get Software

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, while the description adds meaningful context: it does not wake the car and missing fields indicate firmware did not return them. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but it adds useful behavioral detail beyond 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 short and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and useful caveats after it. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema, one optional parameter, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify when to prefer this tool over tesla_get_status for broader vehicle information.

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 100% description coverage and fully documents the optional vin parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the schema appropriately carries parameter semantics.

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 specific resource and return focus: installed software version and pending update status. It also distinguishes itself somewhat from wake-related tools by saying it does not wake the car, though it does not explicitly position itself against tesla_get_status.

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 phrase "Does not wake the car" implies a useful context for querying software state without waking the vehicle. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as tesla_get_status for broader vehicle state.

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