powerwall_get_meters_aggregates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the meter scope is stated. However, it does not mention response format, whether readings are point-in-time snapshots, or any access prerequisites. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are prominent, and the categories add just enough specificity without bloat.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is a lack of clarification on what 'aggregates' means and how this tool differs from the nearly identical sibling powerwall_get_meters. An agent could struggle to pick the correct tool among the meter-related siblings.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the invocation contract. The description has no additional parameter-level meaning to provide, earning the baseline score of 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('current readings from meters'), and enumerates what those meters measure (solar, grid, battery, home). It is unambiguous in its operation, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling powerwall_get_meters.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of powerwall_get_meters and other meter-related siblings, the agent is left without guidance on which tool fits the 'aggregates' nuance.

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