get_ecu_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Describe' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, whether it queries the live ECU, or whether a connection or session prerequisite exists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently lists the key categories of information the tool returns.

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 output schema documents the return structure, and the description confirms the high-level contents: interface, CAN IDs, current session, DIDs, routines, and security levels. It is sufficient for invocation, but it omits usage context relative to the many diagnostic sibling tools.

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, which merits the baseline score of 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain beyond what the empty input schema already conveys.

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, 'Describe', and names the resource, 'the connected ECU'. It also enumerates the returned information, including interface, CAN IDs, current session, known DIDs, routines, and security levels, which clearly separates it from diagnostic action tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 does not state when this tool should be used, when it should not, or which sibling tool to use instead. An agent could reasonably infer it is an introspection tool, but it does not clarify whether it should be called before read_data_by_identifier, security_access, or routine_control.

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