diagnose_gimbal_tuning

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

The description discloses the false-deadlock detection behavior, including the specific output field, warning code, and reset guidance. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or what system access it requires, which is a gap given no annotations are provided.

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?

The description is well-structured into three clear paragraphs: purpose, input guidance, and edge-case behavior. It is somewhat verbose but remains focused and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input modes, and a key edge case, which is sufficient given the output schema and sibling tool names. It could benefit from explicitly distinguishing itself from analyze_gimbal_pid, but overall provides solid context.

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 description adds meaning for topic_data and bag_path, explaining their preferred usage, but does not clarify the meaning or units of settle_criterion or step_threshold_rad. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the numeric parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a domain-specific diagnosis tool for RoboMaster Gimbal PID step response, velocity oscillation, windup, and saturation. This distinguishes it from generic analysis tools like analyze_step_response and analyze_gimbal_pid by specifying the exact phenomena analyzed.

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?

The description explicitly recommends passing in-memory topic_data from capture_topic_sync for fast tuning loops and accepts bag_path for offline analysis, providing clear guidance on input selection. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling analysis tools, but the context is clear.

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