get_rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the values are expressed in configurator units and depend on the active rates_type (BETAFLIGHT, RACEFLIGHT, KISS, ACTUAL, QUICK), disclosing a state dependency the agent must account for.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and scope before enumerating fields. It is dense but every clause (units, rates_type, field list, throttle block) carries information; the trailing field list is the only slightly bulky part.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and their unit context, which compensates for the missing return contract. For a simple zero-parameter getter this is close to complete, though it does not describe the exact shape/nesting of the returned structure.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The listed field names are return content, not inputs, and do not misrepresent the empty schema.

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 (RC rates per axis: roll, pitch, yaw) and enumerates exactly what is returned (rc_rate, rate, expo, labels, rate_limit_dps, max_rate_dps, throttle mid/expo/limit/hover). An agent can immediately distinguish this read tool from the sibling set_rates writer and from get_rc.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (read the currently active rates configuration) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and the sibling set_rates is never named as the alternative. An agent can infer the intent from the name and description, but nothing routes it between readers and writers.

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