get_feature_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content by enumerating the kinds of feature flags returned (AIRMODE, LED_STRIP, GPS), but says nothing about return format, whether values are booleans, or whether the list is complete.

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?

A single short clause with no filler; the resource is stated immediately. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For a no-argument read-only getter with no output schema, the description conveys what the call returns via representative examples. A brief note on the return shape would fully close the gap, but the essential information an agent needs is present.

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 takes zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing a global feature list rather than a targeted lookup.

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 names a specific resource ('Features Betaflight activées') and gives concrete examples (AIRMODE, LED_STRIP, GPS), so an agent knows it retrieves the enabled feature flags. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent config getters such as get_advanced_config, get_filter_config, or get_sensor_config.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus the many sibling config getters, nor any prerequisite (e.g. being connected to the flight controller) or exclusion. The agent must infer the use case purely from the resource name.

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