get_acc_limit

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains the meaning of the value ('limits correction', '0 = no limit') and provides type and range ([UINT16, 0–500, default: 0]). This gives adequate transparency for a simple read operation.

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 a single clear sentence followed by a parenthetical with crucial type/range info. No filler, front-loaded with the tool's name and action.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the value's purpose and range. It could mention that it returns the current setting, but the action 'get' implies that. Adequate for the complexity.

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?

No parameters in the input schema, and the description adds meaning about the tool's output (type, range, default). Per rules, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.

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 states the verb 'get' and resource 'acc_limit', and explains its purpose: limiting the accelerometer correction applied to the attitude estimate in angle/horizon mode. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_acc_limit and get_acc_limit_yaw.

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 when to use or when not to use. As a getter, usage is implied but no guidance on alternatives among the many get_acc_* tools. Lack of context to help agent decide between this and get_acc_hardware, etc.

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