powerwall_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' but does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, whether it may fail without an active session, or what the response contains beyond version and uptime. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Get Powerwall status including version and uptime' is concise, direct, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 parameterless tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves out operational context that would help an agent: whether a login is required first, what 'status' encompasses beyond version and uptime, and how this differs from powerwall_get_system_status. Given no output schema and no annotations, slightly more detail would make it complete.

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 description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('Powerwall status') with concrete examples ('version and uptime'). It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like powerwall_get_system_status due to the mentioned fields, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as powerwall_get_system_status or powerwall_get_meters_aggregates. There is no elaboration on required preconditions like authentication or session state, which is especially relevant given the presence of login/logout siblings.

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