rivian_get_vehicle_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, externally-dependent read. The description adds genuine value by listing the telemetry domains returned, but omits behavioral realities such as authentication requirements, whether the read wakes the vehicle, latency, or partial-availability of fields.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first, followed by a dense but relevant field enumeration; there is no filler or restatement of the title. The trailing laundry list is serviceable, though it reads as a dump rather than a structured breakdown.

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?

With a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content — and the field enumeration does that reasonably well. It stops short of explaining the no-argument full-report behavior (left to the schema) or the failure modes when the vehicle is unreachable.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The enumerated field list implicitly hints at valid property names that could be passed in 'properties', but the description gives no syntax, expected casing, or examples beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Get vehicle state') and enumerates the data domains covered — battery, range, doors, windows, tires, location, climate, seat heat, software versions, security, trailer. That scope is distinct from the sibling tools (charging, OTA, drivers/keys, user info), but the description never names an alternative to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

It says what is returned but nothing about when to call this versus rivian_get_user_info, rivian_get_ota_status, or the charging siblings. No prerequisites (e.g. requiring a completed login), no mention of vehicle-awake/offline conditions, and no guidance that the empty-property call is the full-report path.

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