get_topic_frequency

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

No annotations provided. Description implies read-only operation ('Measure') and mentions return of frequency info, but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or if it has side effects.

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?

Extremely concise: a single purpose sentence plus structured Args/Returns. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with full schema and output description, the coverage is nearly complete. Minor gap: does not mention prerequisites (e.g., topic must exist) or ROS2 environment context, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats the parameter names and defaults, adding minimal value beyond the schema (no examples or format details).

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Measure') and the resource ('publishing frequency of a ROS2 topic'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'echo_topic_messages' (view messages) or 'publish_to_topic' (send messages).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied (measuring frequency), but lacks exclusions or comparative usage tips.

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