Tesla Report

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the read-only annotations: it notes that local reports do not wake the car, specifies data windows for weekly_mileage and range_trend, defines the low_charge alert condition and staleness caveat, and clarifies that charging_summary only calls Tesla when opted in. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs.

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 tightly structured: a two-sentence summary up front, followed by one focused line per report type. There is no redundant filler, and the most important behavioral note (local reports do not wake the car) is front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: the report types, their data windows, external-call behavior, and staleness handling. No important call-selection context is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description goes further by explaining what each type value produces (weekly_mileage, range_trend, charging_summary, low_charge), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's short type list.

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 produces a ready-to-read summary and enumerates the four report types, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like tesla_query_history or tesla_get_odometer, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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 usage through phrases like 'ready-to-read summary' and details each report type, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as tesla_query_history or tesla_get_odometer. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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