bosch_get_capacity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data comes from the EU Data Act API and that standard Flow sign-in yields empty results, which is valuable. However, it does not detail potential errors, rate limits, or required authorizations beyond the implied API restriction.

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 well-structured with a main purpose statement, a second paragraph on data source, and a parameter docstring. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the second paragraph could be slightly more concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the data source constraint and empty result scenario. For a read tool with two optional parameters, this is sufficient, but it could mention when to expect non-empty results.

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, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both optional parameters: part_number and serial_number as filters. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default definitions.

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 it retrieves battery capacity tester diagnostic results, explains what data it includes (remaining capacity percentage), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bosch_get_batteries and bosch_get_soc. The verb 'get' and resource 'capacity tester diagnostic results' are specific.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bosch_get_soc for state of charge). It mentions data source constraints (EU Data Act API) and empty results with standard sign-in, but does not direct the agent to other tools for common use cases.

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