get_anti_gravity_cutoff_hz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, and does not mention any prerequisites or return value details beyond the inline type hint.

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: one sentence with a parenthetical note. It front-loads the purpose immediately and wastes no words. Every element serves a clear informational role.

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 tool with no schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, explains the parameter's meaning, and offers tuning guidance. It could mention that it returns the current value without modifications but is otherwise complete.

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, and the input schema is fully covered. The description adds value by specifying the parameter type in the [UINT8, 2–50, default: 5] notation, which helps the agent understand the expected value but is actually about the output. Baseline for zero parameters is 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 tool retrieves the anti_gravity_cutoff_hz parameter and explains it is an LPF cutoff for throttle derivative used by anti-gravity. The verb 'Get' is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling set_anti_gravity_cutoff_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 provides tuning advice ('Adjust for very large or small builds') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the set variant). No context is given about prerequisites or when reading the value is appropriate.

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