get_acc_lpf_hz

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

With no annotations, the description correctly identifies this as a read operation without side effects. However, it could be more explicit about the non-destructive nature and that it returns the current setting.

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 concise, using three lines to convey the action, purpose, and value constraints. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is retrieved and the expected range. It is slightly incomplete in not explicitly stating that the return is the current setting value, but the context is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the data type (UINT16), range (0-500), and default (25), which is useful for understanding the returned value.

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 tool retrieves the accelerometer low-pass filter cutoff frequency and explains its purpose in smoothing acc readings for attitude estimation. The 'get_' prefix distinguishes it from the sibling 'set_acc_lpf_hz'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as the setter tool. The usage is implied by the 'get_' naming, but no explicit guidance on context or exclusions is provided.

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