get_pid_values

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 return-content context by naming the axes returned, but says nothing about units, structure, or how it relates to the advanced PID tool.

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 sentence with the key information (PID values, per-axis scope) front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse to route against siblings, but nothing 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does name the axes. However, it omits units and the distinction from get_pid_advanced, leaving a gap an agent would need to resolve.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; the schema has nothing to document and the description appropriately spends no space on 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 resource (PID P/I/D values) and enumerates the axes covered (roll, pitch, yaw, level, mag), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not distinguish this from the sibling get_pid_advanced, which covers a related but different dataset, so it falls short of a 5.

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 call this versus get_pid_advanced, set_pid_values, or the profile tools. The read-only nature is only inferable from the name and annotations, not from the text.

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