get_anti_gravity_gain

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

With no annotations, the description directly discloses the behavioral effect (prevents dip on punch), the consequence of reducing it (wobbles), and includes type and default. This is sufficient for a simple parameter getter.

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 explaining function, one sentence of tuning guidance, and the type/default. Every part is useful and front-loaded.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool does, why it matters, and how to interpret changes. No gaps.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to explain parameters; it adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose and effect beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly: retrieving the anti_gravity_gain parameter and explains its function (boosts I-term on rapid throttle changes to prevent yaw/pitch dip). It also distinguishes from countless sibling getters by giving specific behavioral context.

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 guidelines are provided. The description includes tuning advice ('reduce if throttle-punch wobbles appear') which indirectly hints at usage but does not compare with alternatives or give comprehensive direction.

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