humanoid_energy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and mostly meets it: it reveals the calculation decomposition, that all parameters are optional with defaults, and that the response includes result, formula, interpretation, and a cite_as sentence. It does not enumerate edge cases or failure modes, but for a read-only calculator this is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose and each sentence earns its place: the question, the energy split model, the defaults/URL, and the response contents. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but remains well structured with no filler.

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 self-contained calculator with all-optional parameters and full schema coverage, the main missing context is return structure, and the description explicitly supplies result, formula, interpretation, and cite_as. An example would improve it, but nothing essential is absent for a competent agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all five parameters with units and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the conceptual grouping 'actuation, inference and idle,' which helps interpret actuation_w, compute_w, and idle_w, but it does not elaborate on individual parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with the exact question it answers ('How long can a humanoid robot run per charge?') and names the resource: humanoid battery runtime split across actuation, inference, and idle. No sibling tool targets humanoid robot runtime, so it is unambiguously distinct despite the shared energy/cost family.

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 provides a clear use context: estimating humanoid robot runtime from battery capacity and a three-way power split. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the humanoid-specific framing makes the boundary to token/LLM energy tools obvious.

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