power_info

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

The description confirms the read-only nature already indicated by annotations, and adds value by specifying the output format (map of fields: voltage, current, charge %, temperature, charging state). This provides context beyond the annotation alone.

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 a single sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes all necessary information without any fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only tool with no parameters. It explains the return format and lists the fields, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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?

There are no parameters (0), and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaning by listing the fields returned, which is essential given no output schema. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 provides detailed battery/power info over BLE as a field-value map, listing specific fields (voltage, current, charge %, temperature, charging state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like device_info and healthwatch by its specific focus and the 'Read-only' qualifier.

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 battery/power information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like device_info or healthwatch. The agent can infer usage from the tool name and content, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion criteria.

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