power_suggest_actions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'suggest' implies a non-mutating advisory call, but the description never confirms it takes no real action (critical given the sibling set includes power_control_device and power_turn_on_and_verify), nor does it mention permissions, cost, or rate limits.

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 clean sentence with no filler, so it is not padded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing, so it reads as under-specified rather than efficient.

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 return-value detail is not required. Yet with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and eight sibling tools, the description leaves the agent without enough to know what the tool produces, when it applies, or how the lone parameter changes the result.

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 description coverage is 0% with one non-trivial parameter. 'Optional target-consumption guidance' hints that target_kwh influences output, but the description never states the parameter's units, format, or effect, and the schema itself only supplies the name 'Target Kwh' and a null default.

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 names a verb ('Return') and loosely a resource ('actions'), plus optional 'target-consumption guidance', so the general shape is inferable. But it never states what domain of action these are (energy-saving? device control?) or what 'evidence' is drawn from, leaving it distinguishable from siblings like power_control_device or power_explain_usage_change only by guesswork.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. The only contextual cue is the phrase 'optional target-consumption guidance', which weakly implies the target_kwh parameter triggers extra behavior, but no condition for reaching for this tool over power_forecast_bill or power_estimate_load_impact is given.

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