ams_energy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context by disclosing the returned measures (energy imported and exported, plus monetary cost) and the aggregation granularity. It stops short of stating units for cost, currency handling, or whether data is live versus cached.

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?

Two short sentences, metrics front-loaded before the time windows, with no filler. It is slightly telegraphic — an explicit verb such as "returns" would make the first fragment a sentence — but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description supplies exactly the scope an agent needs: what is measured and over which windows. Return-value structure is documented by the output schema, so no further detail is required for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. Nothing in the description is needed to qualify inputs, and the schema is trivially complete for an empty argument object.

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 specific resource (energy) and enumerates the metrics returned — kWh in/out plus cost — across three time windows (this hour, today, this month). That is far more specific than the bare tool name, though the operative verb is elided ("used so far") and siblings like ams_history or ams_now are never contrasted, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase "used so far" combined with the hour/today/month windows implies a current rolling aggregate rather than a historical query, which is weak implicit guidance about when this beats ams_history. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the alternatives, and no mention of preconditions.

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