get_power_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'detailed power consumption statistics' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, data freshness, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this affects system state. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates key return metrics. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the high-level purpose from the specific metrics list.

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 complexity of power monitoring in a server context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists metrics but doesn't explain return format (e.g., units, timestamps, aggregation), data scope (e.g., per-component vs. system-wide), or how this differs from related sibling tools. For a tool in this domain, more contextual information is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't mislead 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'detailed power consumption statistics' and lists specific metrics (input voltage, current, consumed power, power budget), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_thermal_stats' or 'get_server_health' that might also provide power-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_server_summary' or 'get_sensors' that might include power data, there's no indication of when this specialized tool is preferred or what prerequisites might exist for accessing power statistics.

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