get_vehicle_telemetry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are capped by 'limit' and ordered 'most recent first', which is valuable. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., unknown vehicle, empty results) or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Get' implies non-mutating. It could go further.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, then the limit and ordering are added efficiently. Every clause earns its place, and the wording is clean and direct.

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?

The description covers the core call requirements: vehicle_id is implied, optional time bounds are explained, and the result cap is specified. The presence of an output schema covers return details. It lacks explicit alternative routing (e.g., 'for fleet summaries use fleet_health_summary'), but the sibling names are self-explanatory and the tool's purpose is clear.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'start' and 'end' are ISO-8601 timestamps and that 'limit' caps the number of readings. vehicle_id is self-evident from its name and the singular 'one vehicle'. This adds meaning beyond the schema for 3 of 4 parameters.

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 a clear resource 'raw telemetry readings for one vehicle', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fleet_health_summary (summaries) and detect_anomalies (anomaly detection). The term 'raw' signals it's the underlying data, not derived artifacts.

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 implies when to use it (when raw per-vehicle readings are needed) and provides optional parameters (start/end, limit), but it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it. The alternatives are inferable from their names, so usage guidance is adequate but implicit.

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