mc3000_mc5000_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'Read' indicating a non-destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions, response format, or potential errors. Adequate for a simple read, but minimal.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary with no redundancy.

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 operation with one parameter, the description is under-specified. It omits what the response contains (e.g., status details) and lacks any error handling context, making it minimally adequate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'slot', and the tool description does not explain it further. While the schema sets min/max (0-3), the description adds no semantic meaning about what slot numbers represent.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('slot status'), and specifies the technical context ('using MC5000 frame layout (opcode 0x91)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mc3000_status' which likely pertain to MC3000 format.

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 for MC5000 format status reading, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mc3000_status' or 'charger.read_slots'. The guidance is implied through technical specificity.

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