get_align_board_yaw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully specifies the data type (INT16), allowed range (-180-360), and default value (45). However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a bracket note. It is front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, then provides type/range/default in a structured format. No wasted words.

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 parameter getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the value represents, its unit, range, default, and when it is relevant. It is complete for this tool's 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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. According to guidelines, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no param info because none is needed.

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 it retrieves the board rotation offset in yaw degrees, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_align_board_pitch and get_align_board_roll by specifying 'yaw'. The purpose is specific and immediately understandable.

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 phrase 'For non-standard FC mounting orientations' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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