get_truck_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting it works with any configured source (mock/http/mmap), indicating backend-agnostic behavior and the snapshot nature, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences. The first lists the included state aspects, and the second frames the tool's primary use case and backend flexibility. Every sentence carries meaning and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, is read-only with comprehensive annotations, and has an output schema, the description fully covers the essential context. It explains what the tool does, what data is returned, and that it works across sources, so no critical information is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% by vacuity. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 the tool fetches the 'current truck state' and enumerates the specific data aspects it covers (speed vs limit, engine, gear, cruise, fuel, damage, lights). It also brands itself as a 'one-call snapshot', which effectively differentiates it from more specialized sibling tools like get_fuel_status or get_navigation.

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?

It frames the tool as the go-to for a comprehensive 'what's happening right now' overview, which implicitly advises using it when a broad state is needed rather than a single metric. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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