get_pid_advanced

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description need not restate safety. It does add useful field-level context, including version-dependent CLI naming (d_min_* before Betaflight 2025.12), which helps interpret results. It says nothing about the active-profile coupling beyond the naming, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates contents; every token carries technical meaning with no filler. The enumeration is dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returned content, and the field-group enumeration largely does that. It is sufficient for a read-only getter, though it omits units/ranges and how the 'active profile' is determined.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The CLI naming detail concerns returned field identities rather than inputs.

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 the specific resource ('Réglages PID avancés du profil actif') and enumerates the exact setting groups it returns, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_pid_values and get_advanced_config. It lacks an explicit action verb (no 'get/retrieve'), so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pid_values or get_advanced_config, and no preconditions or exclusions. The field list implies scope but the agent must infer when this getter is the right choice.

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