get_imu_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the unit conventions for each channel, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about sampling behavior, freshness, or the shape of the returned values.

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 compact fragment with the resource named first and the channel details after; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of being a label rather than a sentence, but every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one thing an agent cannot infer: what channels are returned and in what units. Only the absence of any output-shape or usage context keeps it below 5.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends its words on the output channels rather than inventing parameter semantics.

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 specific resource (IMU data) and enumerates the three sensor channels with their units (accelerometer in g, gyroscope in °/s, magnetometer), which is more informative than a bare 'get IMU data'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings such as get_attitude or get_rates, which read related sensor-derived values.

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 guidance on when to call this rather than get_attitude, get_rates, or the other sensor getters in the sibling list. No prerequisites, polling rate, or context is given, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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