flipper_power_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which hints at a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether it requires the device to be connected, or what side effects (if any) may occur. It lacks any context about safety, errors, or requirements, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral information.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by a concise list of telemetry fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what the return values look like. It lists the data fields, which provides a general sense of the return content, but it does not specify the format, units beyond percentages, or any error/edge-case behavior. For a simple telemetry tool, this is adequate but leaves room for clarification.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly omits any parameter details. According to the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('battery/charging telemetry'), and lists the exact data points (charge level %, voltage, current, temperature, health, capacity). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like flipper_status or flipper_device_info, which cover broader or different aspects.

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 usage when battery/charging telemetry is needed, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites such as requiring an active connection, so the guidance is only implied through the tool's clear purpose.

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