estimate_vs_truth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the analysis phases (ground pre-liftoff, in-air, sudden jumps) and the interpretation (offsets a planner would carry), but says nothing about what happens for a non-SITL log, error behavior, or the read-only analysis nature.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the critical "SITL only" scope before describing what is compared. The closing clause about planner offsets adds interpretive value with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and analysis dimensions. The remaining gap is failure behavior on real-flight logs, which is a minor omission for this analysis tool.

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 single `log` parameter has 100% schema description coverage with accepted formats documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 comparison (PX4 position/yaw estimate vs simulator ground truth) with phases and a jump-detection angle, so an agent can tell it apart from velocity_tracking or estimator_health. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

"SITL only" is an explicit applicability constraint that tells the agent when this tool does and does not apply, which is stronger than generic context. It does not name an alternative for non-SITL logs, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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