snapshot_rc_delta

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 behavior beyond that: it returns only channels exceeding the threshold and names the default (200 µs), clarifying the output shape. It does not describe channel ordering or whether the achieved delta is returned.

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?

Three compact sentences, action front-loaded, then return value, then use case. No filler, though the description is in French while the tool name is English — a minor consistency wrinkle rather than a size problem.

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?

A read-only two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema; the description covers purpose, the default threshold, and the intended use case, which is sufficient for correct invocation. The only real gap is not disambiguating against the similar RC-detection siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents both 'baseline' (format, source from get_rc) and 'threshold' (minimum delta in µs, default 200). The description merely restates the default threshold, adding little the schema does not already carry. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource (compare current RC snapshot to a baseline) and even names the return semantics (channels whose delta exceeds the threshold). It contrasts implicitly with the raw get_rc by referencing the get_rc channels format as the baseline. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from detect_rc_channel_move, which is its closest analogue.

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?

Gives a concrete use case — detecting which channel moves when a stick or switch is actuated — which implies when to reach for it. But it never names alternatives (detect_rc_channel_move, measure_rc_noise, detect_rc_mapping) nor any when-not condition, so the agent must infer routing from context.

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