get_battery_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by specifying the output fields, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation. The verb 'get' implies a non-mutating action, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Detailed battery status') and enumerates the key output fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It names the output fields, which is sufficient for an agent to know what will be returned. It could optionally mention that this is a read-only, no-side-effect operation, but that is not strictly necessary for a simple getter.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly adds no parameter information, which aligns with the schema. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description neither confuses nor contradicts the schema.

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' with resource 'battery health' and lists concrete output fields (cycle count, max capacity, condition). It clearly distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by focusing solely on battery status, and no other sibling covers battery health.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description: the tool is for retrieving battery health details. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. With no competing battery tool in siblings, this is adequate but not explicit.

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